^%X%^.'' 


»   ^^  /^  f^^  "-"^^   '"^^^   ^ 


^w 


®hp  i.  an.  aUtll  ICtbrarg 


QJI367 
B75 


5Jortl|  (Earoltna  ^tuU  Umuersitg 


THE  DANIELS  COLLECTION 


k 


■s^  ■     m(iiiiHiliiijiK,;^,i^?^,i:^.^^??AP,Es    -' 


S00540730   J 


AUG 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  DATE 
INDICATED  BELOW  AND  IS  SUB- 
JECT TO  AN  OVERDUE  FINE  AS 
POSTED  AT  THE  CIRCULATION 
DESK. 


1  9  1986 
IVIAY  1  4  1986 

DEC  2  3  1987 
OCT  1  8  1989 

m  'A  V  mo 

OCT  2  6  1990 
m^  ^993 


2  6  |gq3    A 
^p,Y  {  6  1994 

100M/7-85 


4PR  2  0  1995! 
iflH>j^7  J995 


1> 


V 


APR  2 


^  ■  •'    ^  4 


mh 


DE     ,6  '"^ 


\  H     .  a     J 


«     -..    .  i  n  in  ■ 


M 

IZi 

Q 
Z 

0 

Hi 


By 

William  Jennings  Bryan 


In  His  Image, 

James  Sprunt  Lectures.      I2mo,  cloth  . 


.  51-75 


Heart  to  Heart  Appeals, 

i2mo,    cloth 1^1.25 

The  cream  of  Mr,  Bryan's  public  utterances  on 
Prohibition,  Money,  Imperialism,  Trusts,  Labor,  In- 
come Tax,  Peace,  Religion,  Pan-Americanism,  etc. 


The  Prince  of  Peace, 

l2mo,  boards 


Messages  for  the  Times, 

i2mo,  boards,  each 


60c. 


35c. 


The  First  Commandment, 
In  simple,  unaffected   language,  the   author  en- 
larges upon  the  present-day  breaches  of  the  First 
Commandment. 

The.  Message  from  Bethlehem. 
A  plea  for   the  world-wide  adoption  of  the  spirit 
of  the  Angels'  song — •'  Good-will  to  Men."  The 
context   and   import  of  this    great  principle  has 
never  been  more  understandingly  set  forth. 

The  Royal  Art. 

A  lucid  exposition  of  Mr.  Bryan's  views  concern- 
ing the  aims  and  ideals  of  righteous  government. 

The  Making  of  a  Man. 

A  faithful  tracing  of  the  main  lines  to  be  followed 

if  the  crown  of  manhood  is  to  be  attained. 

The  Fruits  of  the  Tree. 

"  Either  for  the  reinvigoration  of  faith  or  for  the 
dissipation  of  doubt,  this  little  volume  is  a  docu- 
ment of  power." — Continent. 


The 
Menace  of  Darwinism 


By 
WILLIAM  JENNINGS  BRYAN 


Being-  a  reissue  of  chapter  four  from  the 
author's  volume  "  In  His  Image,"  together 
with  comments  on  the  importance  of  its  ap- 
peal, reasons  for  its  separate  publication 
and  an  abstract  of  the  remaining  chapters 


New  York  Chicago 

Fleming    H.    Revell     Company 

London       and      Edinburgh 


Copyright,  1921,  1922,  by 
FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


Printed  in  tht  United  States  of  America 


New  York :  1 58  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago:  17  North  Wabash  Ave. 
London :  2 1  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh :      75    Princes    Street 


Preface 

IT  has  been  decided  to  publish,  in  booklet  form, 
Chapter  IV  from  "  In  His  Image." '  The  com- 
plete work  contains  nine  religious  lectures  deliv- 
ered by  the  author  in  October,  1921,  at  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  Richmond,  Virginia,  and  this 
Preface  is  intended  to  give  a  brief  review  of  the  book 
from  which  the  chapter  is  taken.  The  original  title 
of  this  chapter  was  "  The  Origin  of  Man,"  but  as  it 
deals  with  Darwinism  and  the  effect  of  that  hypothesis 
upon  religious  thought,  the  title  is  changed  to  '*  The 
Menace  of  Darwinism,"  in  order  to  emphasize  its 
dominant  note. 

The  hypothesis  to  which  Darwin*s  name  has  been 
attached  was  not  original  with  him.  Before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Christian  era  vague  suggestions  had 
been  made  attributing  to  man  a  brute  origin,  but  Dar- 
win advanced  explanations  of  the  changes  made  neces- 
sary by  such  an  hypothesis  and  outlined  a  family  tree 
by  which  he  attempted  to  connect  man  with  all  animal 
life  below  him.  He  applied  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
to  man  more  definitely  and  defended  it  more  elabo- 

'"In  His  Image,"  by  William  Jennings  Bryan.     12  mo,  266 
pages— $1.75.    Fleming  H.  Revell  Company. 

3 


4  PREFACE 

rately  than  any  one  else  had  done.  While  the  two 
propositions  which  he  advanced  to  explain  man's  de- 
scent from  the  brute,  viz.,  "  natural  selection  "  and 
"  sexual  selection,"  have  been  largely  discarded,  the 
idea  of  a  brute  descent  still  lives  among  evolutionists 
and,  in  my  judgment,  is  at  present  the  only  serious  at- 
tack upon  the  fundamental  fact  of  God  and  upon  the 
great  and  controlling  influences  that  rest  upon  belief  in 
God. 

Darwin's  views  made  the  holder  thereof  an  agnostic, 
led  him  away  from  belief  in  the  Bible,  God,  and  Christ; 

^  and,  as  I  prove  in  this  lecture,  .the  natural  tendency  of 
Darwinism  is  to  lead  those  astray  who  put  their  faith 

•  in  evolution.  I  speak  now  of  the  tendency.  It  is  dan- 
gerous not  because  ahvays  fatal  but  because  it  is  so 
often  fatal.  Only  a  small  percentage  of  those  who 
take  smallpox  die  of  that  disease,  and  yet  we  quaran- 
tine against  smallpox,  and  no  one  is  permitted  to  com- 
municate the  disease  to  others.  The  spiritual  mortal- 
ity, as  I  show  by  quotations  from  Leuba,  is  greater 
among  those  who  adopt  Darwinism  than  is  the 
physical  mortality  among  those  who  are  afflicted  with 
smallpox. 

The  tendency  of  Darwinism,  when  taken  seriously, 

f  is  to  undermine  faith,  first,  in  the  Bible  as  an  inspired 
book,  and  then  in  the  miracles  because  contrary  to 
evolution;  next,  repudiation  of  the  virgin  birth  and  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  because  miraculous,  and  the 
rejection  of  Christ  as  Son  and  Saviour.  Lastly,  Dar-  - 
winism  leads  to  the  denial  of  the  existence  of  a  per- 

I  sonal  God. 


PEEFACE  5 

Evolutionists  are  divided  into  two  classes— atheistic 
evolutionists,  who  do  not  admit  the  existence  of  a 
Supreme  Being  at  all,  and  theistic  evolutionists,  who 
travel  with  the  atheists  to  the  Ptginning  of  life  and 
then  assume  the  existence  of  GcAas  Creator  of  life. 
While  the  theistic  evolutionist  does  not  aftirmatively 
deny  God,  he  is  more  dangerous  to  Christian  faith  than 
the  atheist,  because,  while  claiming  to  believe  in  a 
Creator,  he  puts  God  so  far  away  that  consciousness 
of  God's  presence  loses  its  power  to  comfort.  How 
can  one  be  conscious  of  God's  presence  in  his  daily  life 
if  God  has  never,  since  life  began,  touched  a  human 
heart  or  put  His  hand  upon  the  destiny  of  nations  or 
individuals?  Evolution  also  paralyzes  the  sense  of  — " 
responsibility  to  God.  What  compelling  force  can  a 
sense  of  responsibility  have  if  it  must  be  strained 
through  the  blood  of  all  the  animal  life  below  man? 
Nearly  all  atheists  come  from  the  ranks  of  the  theistic 
evolutionists.  •  Theistic  evolution  may  be  described  as 
an  anesthetic  which  deadens  the  pain  while  the  patient's 
religion  is  being  gradually  removed,  or  it  may  be 
likened  to  a  way-station  on  the  highway  that  leads 
from  Christian  faith  to  No-God-Land. 

The  special  reason  for  bringing  to  the  attention  of 
Christians  at  this  time  the  evil  that  Darwinism  is  do- 
ing is  to  show  that|  atheists  and  agnostics  are  not  only 
claiming  but  enjoying  higher  rights  and  greater  privi- 
leges in  this  land  than  Christians ;  that  is,  they  are  able 
to  propagate  their  viev/s  at  pttblic  expense  while  Chris- 
tianity must  be  taught  at  the  expense  of  Christians. 
Whenever  Christians,  whether  Protestant  or  Catholic, 


1 


6  PEEFACE 

desire  to  present  to  students  their  interpretation  of 
Christianity  they  build  their  own  colleges  with  their 
own  money,  employ  their  own  teachers,  and  give  to 
the  school  a  name  which  indicates  what  is  being 
taught.  Is  there  any  reason  why  atheists  and  agnostics 
should  not  be  compelled  to  do  likewise?  If  they  desire 
to  teach  that  there  is  no  God  and  therefore  no  Bible 
and  no  Christ,  why  do  they  not  build  their  own  col- 
leges and  support  them?  Christians  do  not  deny  to 
atheists  the  right  to  dispute  the  existence  of  God  or  to 
agnostics  the  right  to  declare  themselves  without  an 
opinion  on  the  subject;  Christians  do  not  deny  the  right 
of  atheists  and  agnostics  to  teach  their  views;  Chris- 
tians would  put  all  on  the  same  level.  The  question 
in  dispute  is  whether  atheists  and  agnostics  have  a 
right  to  teach  irreligion  in  public  schools — whetlier 
teachers  drawing  salaries  from  the  public  treasury 
shall  be  permitted  to  undermine  belief  in  God,  the 
Bible,  and  Christ  by  teaching  not  scientific  truth  but 
unproven  and  unsupported  guesses  which  cannot  be 
true  unless  the  Bible  is  false. 

The  reader  may  know  more  of  the  character  of 
"  In  His  Image  '*  by  the  following  summary: 

Chapter  I  deals  with  the  existence  of  a  Supreme 
Being,  all-wise,  all-powerful,  and  all-loving — self-ex- 
istent and  the  Creator  of  all  things.  Under  this  head 
attention  is  called  to  a  rebuke  which  Tolstoy  delivered 
to  "  the  cultured  crowd  *'  who  think  that  religion  is  a 
superstition,  good  enough  for  the  ignorant  but  un- 
necessary when  one  reaches  a  certain  period  of  in- 
tellectual development.     It  is  this  idea  of  substituting 


PEEFACE  7 

education  for  religion  that  is  threatening  to  overturn 
man's  philosophy  of  Hfe.  The  great  Russian  philoso- 
pher declares  that  religion  does  not  rest  upon  a  vague 
fear  of  the  unseen  forces  of  nature  but  upon  man's 
consciousness  of  his  finiteness  amid  an  infinite  uni- 
verse, and  of  his  sinfulness.  "  This  consciousness," 
Tolstoy  added,  "  man  can  never  outgrow." 

An  ansv^er  is  given  to  those  who  condemn  religion 
because  of  its  mysteries.  Life,  love,  patriotism,  and 
all  other  things  with  which  man  deals  are  full  of 
mystery  and  yet  we  live,  we  love,  and  are  patriotic. 
If  we  only  apply  to  religion  the  same  common  sense 
that  we  apply  to  daily  life  we  shall  put  into  practice 
that  which  w-e  do  know  instead  of  being  distracted  by 
that  which  we  may  never  be  able  to  know.  If  man 
only  lives  up  to  so  much  of  the  Bible  as  he  does  un- 
derstand he  will  be  too  busy  doing  good  to  worry  about 
passages  which  he  finds  difficult. 

Belief  in  God  is  the  basis  upon  which  rest  all  the 
great  influences  that  control  our  lives — all  these  will 
go  if  belief  in  God  goes.  The  existence  of  God,  there- 
fore, becomes  the  basic  fact  not  only  in  religion  but  in 
society  and  civilization. 

Chapter  II  deals  wath  the  Bible  as  the  Book  of 
books.  It  is  either  a  man-made  book  or  a  book  by 
inspiration  given.  Those  who  believe  it  to  be  a  man- 
made  book  are  challenged  to  put  their  theory  to  the 
test.  If  man  made  the  Bible,  man  ought  to  be  able 
to  make  a  better  book  to-day  than  the  Bible.  If  the 
Bible  is  a  man-made  book,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
it  was  made  by  a  comparatively  few  persons  of  a  single 


8  PREFACE 

race,  living  in  an  area  not  as  large  as  some  of  our 
American  counties,  who  had  no  great  universities  to 
train  them  for  their  work,  no  great  libraries  to  consult, 
no  swift  ships  to  carry  them  to  the  different  centers  of 
civilization,  no  telegraph  to  bring  them  news  from 
every  corner  of  the  earth.  Yet  they  grappled  with 
every  problem  that  confronts  mankind,  from  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  to  life  beyond  the  grave.  They  gave 
us  a  diagram  of  man's  existence  and  set  up  w^arning 
signs  at  every  danger  point.  If  the  Bible  be  of  human 
origin,  why  is  it  that,  with  all  the  advance  in  wealth, 
education,  and  invention,  mankind  does  not  produce  a 
better  book  ? 

In  one  chapter  Moses  gives  us  three  verses  that  more 
vitally  concern  man  than  all  that  can  be  found  in  all 
the  books  that  uninspired  man  has  written.  "  In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  is 
the  only  sentence  that  gives  us  the  origin  of  life;  sec- 
ond, the  command  that  established  reproduction  ac- 
cording to  kind;  that  is  the  only  law  governing  the 
continuity  of  the  race;  and,  third,  the  making  of  man 
in  God's  image;  that  is  the  only  explanation  of  man's 
existence  on  earth. 

No  substitute  ever  proposed  for  the  first  verse  of 
the  Bible  is  as  easily  understood,  believed,  and  de- 
fended. 

The  law  of  reproduction  according  to  kind  is  in- 
violable. Even  man  is  not  able  to  lead  or  compel  that 
intangible,  invisible  thing  that  we  call  life  to  cross  the 
line  of  species. 

And  no  man  without  revelation  has  ever  been  able 


PEEFACE  9 

to  guess  the  riddle  of  man's  existence.  How  can  he  ? 
Man  is  born  into  this  world  without  his  own  voHtion ; 
he  has  nothing  whatever  to  say  as  to  the  age  in  which 
he  will  live,  the  land  in  which  he  will  be  born,  the  race 
of  which  he  will  be  a  member,  the  family  which  will 
furnish  the  environment  of  his  infancy  and  youth,  or 
even  his  sex.  So  far  as  he  is  concerned,  he  comes  by 
chance,  knows  not  how  long  he  will  stay,  or  how  or 
when  he  will  go  hence. 

But  w^hen  man  knows  that  God,  after  making  all 
other  things,  made  man,  not  as  He  made  all  other 
things  but  in  His  oimi  likeness,  appointed  him  com- 
mander-in-chief of  all  that  is  and  put  the  destiny  of 
the  earth  into  his  hands,  he  finds  himself.  He  learns 
from  God's  Word  that  while  all  is  for  him  he  must 
render  account  for  every  moment  of  his  life,  every 
atom  of  his  power  and  every  ounce  of  his  influence. 
The  Heavenly  Father  has  linked  happiness  to  virtue 
and  success  to  righteousness,  exacting  from  man  in 
return  only  one  thing — obedience. 

Where  in  all  other  books  can  be  found  so  much  that 
is  vital  to  man?  And  besides  these  three  verses  we 
have — the  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  the  consolation 
of  the  Psalms,  the  instruction  that  comes  from  the 
record  of  God's  dealing  with  a  chosen  people;  then 
the  New  Testament  with  the  story  of  Jesus  and  His 
atoning  blood,  a  code  of  morality  that  is  to  endure  for 
all  time  and  a  gospel  for  every  human  being.  Behind 
all  these  we  have  Christ  Himself,  with  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth  in  His  hands,  and  His  promise,  "  Lo, 
I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 


10  PEEFACE 

The  Bible  gives  us  the  world's  only  conception  of 
God;  it  gives  us  our  only  conception  of  Christ,  and 
it  gives  us  itself  as  an  infallible  guide. 

The  Bible  must  be  rejected  or  defended.  If  it  be 
false,  it  is  the  most  stupendous  impostor  the  world  has 
ever  known;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  true,  as  we 
believe  it  is,  no  book  can  be  compared  with  it — ^noth- 
ing in  all  the  writings  of  men  can  approach  it. 

Chapter  III  deals  with  Christ  and  takes  up  the  vari- 
ous theories  in  regard  to  Him.  Was  He  a  fraud? 
Did  He  make  a  claim  to  power  under  a  delusion  ?  Or 
was  He  what  He  claimed  to  be,  "  The  Way,  the  Truth, 
and  the  Life  "  ?  It  presents  Christ  as  Son  of  God  and 
Saviour  of  the  world,  and  offers  in  proof  of  His  claim 
what  He  said  and  did  and  was.  Born  in  a  manger, 
reared  in  a  carpenter  shop,  and  yet,  when  only  about 
thirty  years  of  age.  He  gave  the  world  a  code  of 
morality  the  like  of  which  the  world  had  never  seen 
before  and  has  not  seen  since,  preached  for  a  few 
months,  gathered  around  Him  a  few  disciples,  and 
then  was  crucified  and  His  disciples  scattered,  or  put 
to  death.  Yet,  from  this  beginning,  His  influence  has 
grown  until  hundreds  of  millions  have  been  proud  to 
bear  His  name  and  millions  have  been  willing  to  die 
rather  than  surrender  their  faith  in  Him.  He  is  the 
great  fact  of  history  and  the  growing  figure  of  all 
time.  It  is  easier  to  believe  Him  divine  than  to  ex- 
plain His  life.  His  teachings,  and  the  spread  of  the 
religion  that  bears  His  Name  in  any  other  way.  The 
facts  of  history  so  fully  support  the  claims  of  the  Bible, 
and  of  the  Bible's  God  and  Christ  that  the  burden  of 


PEEFACE  11 

proof  is  upon  those  who  reject  them,  not  upon  those 
who  accept  them. 

Chapter  IV  is  the  present  reprint,  and  so  speaks  for 
itself. 

Chapter  V  deals  with  "The  Larger  Life"  and  is 
built  upon  two  Bible  quotations.  Paul  tells  us  that 
Christ  came  to  bring  "  life  and  immortality  to  light  " 
— and  the  word  "  Hfe  "  comes  before  the  word  **  im- 
mortality." But  we  have  a  higher  authority  even  than 
Paul;  Christ  in  His  explanation  of  His  own  mission 
said,  "  I  am  come  that  they  might  have  life,  and  that 
they  might  have  it  more  abundantly/'  It  is  to  the 
more  abundant  life  that  Christ  calls  us.  The  chapter 
contains  illustrations  of  the  manner  in  which  Chris- 
tianity can  be  applied  to  the  individual,  and  shows  that 
the  Christian  life  is  the  only  one  in  which  true  and 
lasting  happiness  can  be  found.  The  Christian  philos- 
ophy is  the  only  one  that  fits  into  every  human  need 
and  furnishes  a  solution  for  every  problem. 

Chapter  VI  deals  with  the  value  of  a  soul — 
Christ's  question,  *'  What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he 
shall  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul?  " 
An  effort  is  made  to  set  forth  God's  law  of  rewards 
and  to  show  how  its  universal  adoption  would  solve 
the  problems  that  perplex  us,  by  limiting  man's  col- 
lections to  his  earnings.  Illustrations  are  given  to 
show  that  man  may  earn  enormous  sums,  attention 
being  called  to  the  fact  that  those  who  earn  the  largest 
amounts,  by  giving  an  equivalent  service  in  return,  do 
not  collect  all  they  earn.  Those  who  earn  fabulous 
sums  are  so  busy  earning  that  they  have  not  time  to 


12  PEEFACE 

collect,  while  those  who  collect  fabulous  sums  are  so 
busy  collecting  that  they  have  no  time  to  earn. 

Chapter  VII  deals  with  the  Bible  account  of  the 
healing  of  the  ten  lepers,  nine  of  whom  were  ungrate- 
ful. It  applies  this  great  lesson  of  ingratitude  to  the 
citizens  of  our  own  country.  Three  priceless  gifts  are 
used  as  illustrations;  viz.,  Christianity,  education,  and 
popular  government.  Education  is  described  as  a  gift 
rather  than  an  accomplishment  because  it  depends  so 
largely  upon  inherited  advantages  and  opportunities 
that  come  with  the  environment  of  youth.  Quotations 
are  given  to  show  that  many  who  receive  the  benefits 
of  education  are  not  only  as  ungrateful  as  the  nine 
lepers  but  actually  use  against  society  the  strength 
which  education  gives  them.  Wendell  Phillips  is  quoted 
as  saying  that  the  people  make  history  while  the 
scholars  only  write  it,  part  truly  and  part  as  colored 
by  their  prejudices.  President  Wilson  is  quoted  as 
saying  that  the  great  voice  of  America  does  not  come 
from  seats  of  learning  or  even  find  an  echo  in  the 
corridors  of  our  universities.  President  Roosevelt  is 
quoted  as  saying  that  there  is  scarcely  a  great  con- 
spiracy against  the  public  welfare  that  has  not  Har- 
vard brains  behind  it — and  the  charge  applies  to  other 
universities  as  well  as  to  Harvard.  Emphasis  is  laid 
upon  the  duty  of  Christians  to  meet  their  obligations  as 
citizens  and  on  the  Church  to  deal  with  all  the  problems 
that  confront  the  world. 

Chapter  VIII  deals  with  "  His  Government  and 
Peace,"  and  was  suggested  by  verse  seven  of  the  ninth 
chapter  of  Isaiah:  "  Of  the  increase  of  his  government 


PREFACE  13 

and  his  peace  there  shall  be  no  end."  In  this  chapter 
Christ's  teachings  are  applied  to  government,  a  contrast 
being  drawn  between  the  attitude  which  man  assumes 
when  he  deals  with  his  fellowmen  as  a  man  and  a 
brother  wherein  he  is  restrained  by  the  ties  of  kinship, 
and  the  attitude  of  the  brute  when  he  devours  with  the 
savage  hunger  of  the  beast.  A  number  of  great  re- 
forms are  traced  to  the  teachings  of  Christ. 

Chapter  IX  (the  concluding  one)  is  devoted  to  a 
discussion  of  public  speaking.  Rules  are  suggested  for 
the  use  of  those  who  present  their  thoughts  from  pul- 
pit or  platform.  Attention  is  called  to  first  essentials — 
knowledge  of  the  subject  and  earnestness  in  its  pre- 
sentation, clearness  of  statement,  brevity,  illustrations, 
the  question,  faith  in  the  triumph  of  the  right,  and  the 
character  of  the  speaker  who  stands  back  of  what 
he  says  and  gives  force  to  it. 

In  the  book  as  a  whole,  I  have  endeavored  to  present 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian  faith.  It 
is  intended  for  the  average  man;  the  arguments  are 
presented  in  every-day  language  and  the  illustrations 
drawn  from  every-day  life.  Its  purpose  is  to 
strengthen  the  readers'  faith  in  a  real  God — a  living 
Heavenly  Father — in  His  Word  as  an  infallible  guide, 
and  in  Jesus  Christ  as  Son,  Saviour,  and  perfect  Ex- 
ample for  mankind. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN 

WHEN  the  mainspring  is  broken  a  watch 
ceases  to  be  useful  as  a  timekeeper.  A 
handsome  case  may  make  it  still  an  orna- 
ment and  the  parts  may  have  a  market  value,  but  it 
cannot  serve  the  purpose  of  a  watch.  There  is  that 
in  each  human  life  that  corresponds  to  the  mainspring 
of  a  watch — that  which  is  absolutely  necessary  if  the 
life  is  to  be  what  it  should  be,  a  real  life  and  not  a 
mere  existence.  That  necessary  thing  is  a  belief  in 
God.  Religion  is  defined  as  the  relation  between  God 
and  man,  and  Tolstoy  has  described  morality  as  the 
outward  expression  of  this  inward  relationship.  , 

If  it  be  true,  as  I  believe  it  is,  that  morality  is  de- 
pendent upon  religion,  then  religion  is  not  only  the 
most  practical  thing  in  the  world,  but  the  first  es- 
sential. Without  religion,  viz.,  a  sense  of  depend- 
ence upon  God  and  reverence  for  Him,  one  can  play 
a  part  in  both  the  physical  and  the  intellectual  world, 
but  he  cannot  live  up  to  the  possibilities  which  God 
has  placed  within  the  reach  of  each  human  being. 

A  belief  in  God  is  fundamental;  upon  it  rest  the  in- 
fluences that  control  life. 

First,  the  consciousness  of  God's  presence  in  the  life 
gives  one  a  sense  of  responsibility  to  the  Creator  for 
every  thought  and  word  and  deed. 

15 


16  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

Second,  prayer  rests  upon  a  belief  in  God;  com-  ; 
munion  with  the  Creator  in  the  expression  of  gratitude 
and  in  pleas  for  guidance  powerfully  influences  man. 
Third,  belief  in  a  personal  immortality  rests  upon 
.   faith  in  God;  the  inward  restraint  that  one  finds  in  a  j 
faith  that  looks  forward  to  a  future  life  with  its  re-  ] 
i    wards  and  punishments,  makes  outward  restraint  less 
I    necessary.     Man  is  weak  enough  in  hours  of  tempta- 
I     tion,  even  when  he  is  fortified  by  the  conviction  that 
I     this  life  is  but  a  small  arc  of  an  infinite  circle;  his 
power  of  resistance  is  greatly  impaired  if  he  accepts 
the  doctrine  that  conscious  existence  terminates  with 
death. 
/      Fourth,  the  spirit  of  brotherhood  rests  on  a  belief 
I   in  God.    We  trace  our  relationship  to  our  fellowmen 
\  through  the  Creator,  the  Common  Parent  of  us  all. 
Fifth,  belief  in  the  Bible  depends  upon  a  belief  in 
God.     Jehovah  comes  first;  His  word  comes  after- 
ward.   There  can  be  no  inspiration  without  a  Heavenly 
Father  to  inspire. 

Sixth,  belief  in  God  is  also  necessary  to  a  belief  in 

Christ;  the  Son  could  not  have  revealed  the  Father 

i 

to  man  according  to  any  atheistc  theory.    And  so  with  ■ 
all  other  Christian  doctrines:  they  rest  upon  a  belief 
in  God.  1 

If  belief  in  God  is  necessary  to  the  beliefs  enumer-  | 
I  ated,  then  it  follows  logically  that  anything  that  weak- 
ens belief  in  God  weakens  man,  and,  to  the  extent  that 
it  impairs  belief  in  God,  reduces  his  power  to  measure 
up  to  his  opportunities  and  responsibilities.  If  there 
is  at  work  in  the  world  to-day  anything  that  tends  to 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  17 

break  this  mainspring,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  moral,  as 
well  as  the  Christian,  world  to  combat  this  influence 
in  every  possible  way. 

I  believe  there  is  such  a  menace  to  fundamental 
morality.  The  hypothesis  to  which  the  name  of  Dar- 
win has  been  given — the  hypothesis  that  links  man  to 
the  lower  forms  of  life  and  makes  him  a  lineal  de- 
scendant of  the  brute — is  obscuring  God  and  weaken- 
ing all  the  virtues  that  rest  upon  the  rehgious  tie  be- 
tween God  and  man.  Passing  over,  for  the  present, 
all  other  phases  of  evolution  and  considering  only  that 
part  of  the  system  which  robs  man  of  the  dignity  con- 
ferred upon  him  by  separate  creation,  when  God 
breathed  into  him  the  breath  of  life  and  he  became  the 
first  man,  I  venture  to  call  attention  to  the  demoraliz- 
ing influence  exerted  by  this  doctrine. 
f^  If  we  accept  the  Bible  as  true  we  have  no  difficulty; 
in  determining  the  origin  of  man.  In  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Genesis  we  read  that  God,  after  creating  all 
other  things,  said,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness ;  and  let  him  have  dominion  over  the 
fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over 
the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth,  and  over  every  creep- 
ing thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth.  So  God  cre- 
ated man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  cre- 
ated he  him;  male  and  female  created  he  them.'* 

The  materialist  has  always  rejected  the  Bible  ac- 
count of  Creation  and,  during  the  last  half  century, 
the  Darwinian  doctrine  has  been  the  means  of  shaking 
the  faith  of  millions^^t  is  important  that  man  should 
have  a  correct  understanding  of  his  line  of  descent. 


18  THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN 

Huxley  calls  it  the  "  question  of  questions  "  for  man- 
kind. He  says:  "The  problem  which  underlies  all 
others,  and  is  more  interesting  than  any  other — is  the 
ascertainment  of  the  place  which  man  occupies  in  na- 
ture and  of  his  relation  to  the  universe  of  things. 
Whence  our  race  has  come,  what  are  the  limits  of  our 
power  over  nature,  and  of  nature*s  power  over  us,  to 
what  goal  are  we  tending,  are  the  problems  which  pre- 
sent themselves  anew  with  undiminished  interest  to 
every  man  bom  in  the  world." 

The  materialists  deny  the  existence  of  God  and  seek 
to  explain  man's  presence  upon  the  earth  without  a 
creative  act.  They  go  back  from  man  to  the  animals, 
and  from  one  form  of  life  to  another  until  they  come 
to  the  first  germ  of  life;  there  they  divide  into  two 
schools,  some  believing  that  the  first  germ  of  life  came 
from  another  planet,  others  holding  that  it  was  the 
result  of  spontaneous  generation.  One  school  answers 
the  arguments  advanced  by  the  other  and,  as  they  can- 
not agree  with  each  other,  I  am  not  compelled  to  agree 
with  either. 

If  it  were  necessary  to  accept  one  of  these  theories 
I  would  prefer  the  first ;  for,  if  we  can  chase  the  germ 
of  life  off  of  this  planet  and  out  into  space,  we  can 
guess  the  rest  of  the  way  and  no  one  can  contradict 
us.  But,  if  we  accept  the  doctrine  of  spontaneous  gen- 
eration we  will  have  to  spend  our  time  explaining  w^hy 
spontaneous  generation  ceased  to  act  after  the  first 
germ  of  life  was  created.  It  is  not  necessary  to  pay 
much  attention  to  any  theory  that  boldly  eliminates 
God;  it  does  not  deceive  many.    The  mind  revolts  at 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAK  19 

the  idea  of  spontaneous  generation;  in  all  the  researches 
of  the  ages  no  scientist  has  found  a  single  instance  of 
life  that  was  not  begotten  by  life.  The  materialist  has 
nothing  but  imagination  to  build  upon ;  he  cannot  hope 
for  company  or  encouragement. 

But  the  Darwinian  doctrine  is  more  dangerous  be-  ) 
cause  more  deceptive.     It  permits  one  to  beHeve  in  a  v 
God,  but  puts  the  creative  act  so  far  away  that  rever-  / 
ence  for  the  Creator — even  belief  in  Him — is  likely  to  J 
be  lost.  -^ 

Before  commenting  on  the  Darwinian  hypothesis 
let  me  refer  you  to  the  language  of  its  author  as  it 
applies  to  man.  On  page  180  of  ''  Descent  of  Man  " 
(Hurst  &  Company,  Edition  1874),  Darwin  says: 
"  Our  most  ancient  progenitors  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  Vertebrata,  at  which  we  are  able  to  obtain 
an  obscure  glance,  apparently  consisted  of  a  group 
of  marine  animals,  resembling  the  larvae  of  the 
existing  Ascidians."  r  Then  he  suggests  a  line  of  de- 
scent leading  to  the  mt)nkey.^  And  he  does  not  even 
permit  us  to  indulge  in  a  patriotic  pride  of  ancestry; 
instead  of  letting  us  descend  from  American  monkeys, 
he  connects  us  with  the  European  branch  of  the  mon- 
key family. 

It  will  be  noted,  first,  that  he  begins  the  summary 
with  the  word  "  apparently,"  which  the  Standard  Dic- 
tionary defines:  "as  judged  by  appearances,  without 
passing  upon  its  reality."  His  second  sentence  (fol-s^  ^ 
lowing  the  sentence  quoted)  turns  upon  the  word  ^^i 
"  probably,"  which  is  defined:  "  as  far  as  the  evidence  \j 
shows,  presumably,  likely."     His  works  are  full  of        j 


20  THE  ORIGIK  OF  MAK 

words  indicating  uncertainty.  The  phrase  "we  may 
well  suppose,"  occurs  over  eight  hundred  times  in  his 
two  principal  works.  (See  Herald  &  Presbyter, 
November  22,  1914.)  The  eminent  scientist  is  guess- 
ing. 

After  locating  our  gorilla  and  chimpanzee  ancestors 
in  Africa,  he  concludes  that  "  it  is  useless  to  speculate 
on  this  subject."  If  the  uselessness  of  speculation  had 
occurred  to  him  at  the  beginning  of  his  investigation 
he  might  have  escaped  responsibility  for  shaking  the 
faith  of  two  generations  by  his  guessing  on  the  whole 
subject  of  biology. 

If  we  could  divide  the  human  race  into  two  distinct 
groups  we  might  allow  evolutionists  to  worship  brutes 
as  ancestors  but  they  insist  on  connecting  all  mankind 
with  the  jungle.  We  have  a  right  to  protect  our  fam- 
ily tree. 

Having  given  Darwin's  conclusions  as  to  man's  an- 
cestry, I  shall  quote  him  to  prove  that  his  hypothesis  is 
not  only  groundless,  but  absurd  and  harmful  to  so- 
ciety. It  is  groundless  because  there  is  not  a  single  fact 
in  the  universe  that  can  be  cited  to  prove  that  man  is 
descended  from  the  lower  animals.  Darwin  does  noi 
use  facts ;  he  uses  conclusions  drawn  from  similarities. 
He  builds  upon  presumptions,  probabilities  and  infer- 
ences, and  asks  the  acceptance  of  his  hypothesis  "  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  connecting  links  have  nol 
hitherto  been  discovered"  (page  162).  He  advances 
an  hypothesis  which,  if  true,  would  find  support  on 
every  foot  of  the  earth's  surface,  but  which,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  finds  support  nowhere.    There  are  myriads 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  21 

of  living  creatures  about  us,  from  insects  too  small 
to  be  seen  with  the  naked  eye  to  the  largest  mammals, 
and,  yet,  not  one  is  in  transition  from  one  species  to 
another;  every  one  is  perfect.  It  is  strange  that 
slight  similarities  could  make  him  ignore  gigantic  dif- 
ferences. The  remains  of  nearly  one  hundred  species 
of  vertebrate  life  have  been  found  in  the  rocks,  of 
which  more  than  one-half  are  found  living  to-day,  and 
none  of  the  survivors  show  material  change.  The 
word  hypothesis  is  a  synonym  used  by  scientists  for 
the  word  guess ;  it  is  more  dignified  in  sound  and  more 
imposing  to  the  sight,  but  it  has  the  same  meaning  as 
the  old-fashioned,  every-day  word,  guess.  If  Darwin 
had  described  his  doctrine  as  a  guess  instead  of  calling 
it  an  hypothesis,  it  would  not  have  lived  a  year.* 

Probably  nothing  impresses  Darwin  more  than  the 
fact  that  at  an  early  stage  the  foetus  of  a  child  cannot 
be  distinguished  from  the  foetus  of  an  ape,  but  why 

^Dr.   Etheridge,   Fossiologist  of   the  British   Museum,   says:^ 
"  Nine-tenths  of  the  talk  of  Evolutionists  is  sheer  nonsense,  not 
founded  on  observation  and  wholly  unsupported  by  facts.    This 
museum  is  full  of  proofs  of  the  utter  falsity  of  their  views." 

Prof.  Beale,  of  King's  College,  London,  says:  "In  support  of 
all  naturalistic  conjectures  concerning  man's  origin,  there  is  not 
at  this  time  a  shadow  of  scientific  evidence." 

Prof.  Fleischmann,  of  Erlangen,  says :  "  The  Darwinian  theory 
has  in  the  realms  of  Nature  not  a  single  fact  to  confirm  it.    It  is  | 
not  the  result  of  scientific  research,  but  purely  the  product  of  ' 
the  imagination," 

The  January  issue  of  "  Science,"  1922,  contains  a  speech  de- 
livered at  Toronto  last  December  by  Prof.  William  Bateson  of 
London  before  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement 
of  vScience.  He  says  that  science  has  faith  in  evolution  but 
doubts  as  to  the  origin  of  species. 


22  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

should  such  a  similarity  in  the  beginning  impress  him 
more  than  the  difference  at  birth  and  the  immeasurable 
gulf  between  the  two  at  forty?  If  science  cannot  de- 
tect a  difference,  ktiown  to  exist,  between  the  foetus 
of  an  ape  and  the  foetus  of  a  child,  it  should  not 
ask  us  to  substitute  the  inferences,  the  presump- 
tions and  the  probabilities  of  science  for  the  word  of 
God. 

Science  has  rendered  invaluable  service  to  society; 
her  achievements  are  innumerable — and  the  hypotheses 
of  scientists  should  be  considered  with  an  open  mind. 
Their  theories  should  be  carefully  examined  and  their 
arguments  fairly  weighed,  but  the  scientist  cannot 
compel  acceptance  of  any  argument  he  advances,  ex- 
cept as,  judged  upon  its  merits,  it  is  convincing.  Man 
is  infinitely  more  than  science;  science,  as  well  as  the 
Sabbath,  was  made  for  man.  It  must  be  remembered, 
also,  that  all  sciences  are  not  of  equal  importance. 
Tolstoy  insists  that  the  science  of  "  How  to  Live  "  is 
more  important  than  any  other  science,  and  is  this  not 
true  ?  nt  is  better  to  trust  in  the  Rock  of  Ages,  than  to 
know  the  age  of  the  rocks  ^  it  is  better  for  one  to  know 
\  that  he  is  close  to  the  Heavenly  Father,  than  to  know 
j  how^  far  the  stars  in  the  heavens  are  apart.  And  is  it 
not  just  as  important  that  the  scientists  who  deal  with 
matter  should  respect  the  scientists  who  deal  with 
spiritual  things,  as  that  the  latter  should  respect  the 
former?  If  it  be  true,  as  Paul  declares,  that  "the 
things  that  are  seen  are  temporal  *'  while  "  the  things 
that  are  unseen  are  eternal,"  why  should  those  who 
deal  with  temporal  things  think  themselves  superior  to 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAK  23 

those  who  deal  with  the  things  that  are  eternal  ?    Why 
should  the  Bible,  which  the  centuries  have  not  been 
able  to  shake,  be  discarded  for  scientific  works  that    s 
have  to  be  revised  and  corrected  every  few  years  ?  j 
The  preference  should  be  given  to  the  Bible. 

The  two  lines  of  work  are  parallel.  There  should 
be  no  conflict  between  the  discoverers  of  real  truths, 
because  real  truths  do  not  conflict.  Every  truth  har- 
monizes with  every  other  truth,  but  why  should  an 
hypothesis,  suggested  by  a  scientist,  be  accepted  as  true 
until  its  truth  is  established?  Science  should  be  the 
last  to  make  such  a  demand  because  science  to  be  truly 
science  is  classified  knowledge ;  it  is  the  explanation  of 
facts.  Tested  by  this  definition,  Darwinism  is  not 
science  at  all;  it  is  guesses  strung  together.  There  is 
more  science  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse  of  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  (And  God  said,  let  the  eartii  bring 
forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind,  cattle  and 
creeping  things,  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind; 
and  it  was  so. )  than  in  all  that  Darwin  wrote. 

It  is  no  light  matter  to  impeach  the  veracity  of  the 
Scriptures  in  order  to  accept,  not  a  truth — ^not  even  a 
theory — ^but  a  mere  hypothesis.  Professor  Huxley 
says,  "There  is  no  fault  to  be  found  with  Darwin's 
method,  but  it  is  another  thing  whether  he  has  fulfilled 
all  the  conditions  imposed  by  that  method.  Is  it  satis- 
factorily proved  that  species  may  be  originated  by  se- 
lection ?  That  none  of  the  phenomena  exhibited  by  the 
species  are  inconsistent  with  the  origin  of  the  species 
in  this  way?  If  these  questions  can  be  answered  in 
the  affirmative,  Mr.  Darwin's  view  steps  out  of  the 


24  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

ranks  of  hypothesis  into  that  of  theories ;  but  so  long 
as  the  evidence  adduced  falls  short  of  enforcing  that 
affirmative,  so  long,  to  our  minds,  the  new  doctrine 
must  be  content  to  remain  among  the  former — an  ex- 
tremely valuable,  and  in  the  highest  degree  probable, 
doctrine;  indeed  the  only  extant  hypothesis  which  is 
worth  anything  in  a  scientific  point  of  view ;  but  still  A 
hypothesis,  and  not  a  theory  of  species."  "After 
much  consideration,"  he  adds,  "  and  assuredly  with  no 
bias  against  Darwin's  views,  it  is  our  clear  conviction 
that,  as  the  evidence  now  stands,  it  is  not  absolutely 
proven  that  a  group  of  animals,  having  all  the  charac- 
ters exhibited  by  species  in  nature,  has  ever  been  origi- 
nated by  selection,  whether  artificial  or  natural." 

But  Darwin  is  absurd  as  well  as  groundless.  He 
announces  two  laws,  which,  in  his  judgment,  explain 
the  development  of  man  from  the  lowest  form  of  ani- 
mal life,  viz.,  natural  selection  and  sexual  selection. 
The  latter  has  been  abandoned  by  the  modern  believers 
in  evolution,  but  two  illustrations,  taken  from  Dar- 
win's "  Descent  of  Man,"  will  show  his  unreliability  as 
a  guide  to  the  young.  On  page  587  of  the  1874  edition, 
he  tries  to  explain  man's  superior  mental  strength  (a 
proposition  more  difficult  to  defend  to-day  than  in 
Darwin's  time).  His  theory  is  that,  **  the  struggle  be- 
tween the  males  for  the  possession  of  the  females" 
helped  to  develop  the  male  mind  and  that  this  superior 
strength  was  transmitted  by  males  to  their  male  off- 
spring. 

After  having  shown,  to  his  own  satisfaction,  how 
sexual  selection  would  account  for  the   (supposed) 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  25 

greater  strength  of  the  male  mind,  he  turns  his  atten-" 
tion  to  another  question,  namely,  how  did  man  become 
a  hairless  animal  ?  This  he  accounts  for  also  by  sex- 
ual selection — the  females  preferred  the  males  with  the 
least  hair  (page  624).  In  a  footnote  on  page  625  he 
says  that  this  view  has  been  harshly  criticized. 
"  Hardly  any  view  advanced  in  this  work,"  he  says, 
"  has  met  with  so  much  disfavour."  A  comment  and 
a  question:  First,  Unless  the  brute  females  were  very 
different  from  the  females  as  we  know  them,  they 
would  not  have  agreed  in  taste.  Some  would  "  prob- 
ably "  have  preferred  males  with  less  hair,  others,  "  we 
may  well  suppose,"  would  have  preferred  males  with 
more  hair.  Those  with  more  hair  would  naturally  be 
the  stronger  because  better  able  to  resist  the  weather. 
But,  second,  how  could  the  males  have  strengthened 
their  minds  by  fighting  for  the  females  if,  at  the  same 
time,  the  females  were  breeding  the  hair  off  by  select- 
ing the  males?  Or,  did  the  males  select  for  three 
years  and  then  allow  the  females  to  do  the  selecting 
during  leap  year? 

But,  worse  yet,  in  a  later  edition  published  by  L.  A. 
Burt  Company,  a  "  supplemental  note "  is  added  to 
discuss  two  letters  which  he  thought  supported  the  idea 
that  sexual  selection  transformed  the  hairy  animal  into 
the  hairless  man.  Darwin's  correspondent  (page  710) 
reports  that  a  mandril  seemed  to  be  proud  of  a  bare 
spot.  Can  anything  be  less  scientific  than  trying  to 
guess  what  an  animal  is  thinking  about?  It  would 
seem  that  this  also  was  a  subject  about  which  it  was 
"  useless  to  speculate." 


26  THE  OBIGIN  OF  MA:N 

While  on  this  subject  it  may  be  worth  while  to  call 
your  attention  to  other  fantastic  imaginings  of  which 
those  are  guilty  who  reject  the  Bible  and  enter  the  field 
of  speculation — ^fiction  surpassing  anything  to  be 
found  in  the  Arabian  Nights.  If  one  accepts  the 
Scriptural  account  of  the  creation,  he  can  credit  God 
with  the  working  of  miracles  and  with  the  doing  of 
many  things  that  man  cannot  understand.  The  evolu-  • 
tionist,  however,  having  substituted  what  he  imagines 
to  be  a  universal  law  for  separate  acts  of  creation  must 
explain  everything.  The  evolutionst,  not  to  go  back 
farther  than  life  just  now,  begins  with  one  or  a  few 
invisible  germs  of  life  on  the  planet  and  imagines  that 
these  invisible  germs  have,  by  the  operation  of  what 
they  call  "resident  forces,"  unaided  from  without,  de- 
veloped into  all  that  we  see  to-day.  They  cannot  in  a 
lifetime  explain  the  things  that  have  to  be  explained,  if 
their  hypothesis  is  accepted — a  useless  waste  of  time 
even  if  explanation  were  possible. 

Take  the  eye,  for  instance ;  believing  in  the  Mosaic 
account,  I  believe  that  God  made  the  eyes  when  He  | 
made  man — not  only  made  the  eyes  but  carved  out  the 
caverns  in  the  skull  in  which  they  hang.  It  is  easy  for 
the  believer  in  the  Bible  to  explain  the  eyes,  because  he 
believes  in  a  God  who  can  do  all  things  and,  according 
to  the  Bible,  did  create  man  as  a  part  of  a  divine  plan. 

But  how  does  the  evolutionist  explain  the  eye  when 
he  leaves  God  out  ?    Here  is  the  only  guess  that  I  have 
seen — if  you  find  any  others  I  shall  be  glad  to  know  of 
them,  as  I  am  collecting  the  guesses  of  the  evolution-     j 
fets.    The  evolutionist  guesses  that  there  was  a  time 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  27 

when  eyes  were  unknown — that  is  a  necessary  part  of 
the  hypothesis.  And  since  the  eye  is  a  universal  pos- 
session among  living  things  the  evolutionist  guesses 
that  it  came  into  being — not  by  design  or  by  act  of  God 
— but  just  happened,  and  how  did  it  happen?  I  will 
give  you  the  guess — a  piece  of  pigment,  or,  as  some 
say,  a  freckle  appeared  upon  the  skin  of  an  animal  that 
had  no  eyes.  This  piece  of  pigment  or  freckle  con- 
verged the  rays  of  the  sun  upon  that  spot  and  when  the 
little  animal  felt  the  heat  on  that  spot  it  turned  the  spot 
to  the  sun  to  get  more  heat.  The  increased  heat  irri- 
tated the  skin — so  the  evolutionists  guess,  and  a  nerve 
came  there  and  out  of  the  nerve  came  the  eye!  Can 
you  beat  it?  But  this  only  accounts  for  one  eye ;  there 
must  have  been  another  piece  of  pigment  or  freckle 
soon  afterward  and  just  in  the  right  place  in  order  to 
give  the  animal  two  eyes. 

And,  according  to  the  evolutionist,  there  was  a  time 
when  animals  had  no  legs,  and  so  the  leg  came  by  acci- 
dent. How?  Well,  the  guess  is  that  a  little  animal 
without  legs  was  wiggling  along  on  its  belly  one  day 
when  it  discovered  a  wart — it  just  happened  so — and 
it  was  in  the  right  place  to  be  used  to  aid  it  in  locomo- 
tion; so,  it  came  to  depend  upon  the  wart,  and  use 
finally  developed  it  into  a  leg.  And  then  another  wart 
and  another  leg,  at  the  proper  time — by  accident — and 
accidentally  in  the  proper  place.  Is  it  not  astonishing 
that  any  person  intelligent  enough  to  teach  school" 
would  talk  such  tommyrot  to  students  and  look  serious 
while  doing  so? 

And  yet  I  read  only  a  few  weeks  ago,  on  page  124: 


28  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

of  a  little  book  recently  issued  by  a  prominent  New 
York  minister,  the  following: 

"  Man  has  grown  up  in  this  universe  gradually  de- 
veloping his  powers  and  functions  as  responses  to  his 
environment.  If  he  has  eyes,  so  the  biologists  assure 
us,  it  is  because  light  waves  played  upon  the  skin  and 
eyes  came  out  in  answer;  if  he  has  ears  it  is  because 
the  air  waves  were  there  first  and  the  ears  came  out  to 
hear.  Man  never  yet,  according  to  the  evolutionist, 
has  developed  any  power  save  as  a  reality  called  it  into 
being.  There  would  be  no  fins  if  there  were  no  water, 
no  wings  if  there  were  no  air,  no  legs  if  there  were  no 
land." 

You  see  I  only  called  your  attention  to  forty  per  cent, 
of  the  absurdities ;  he  speaks  of  eyes,  ears,  fins,  wings 
and  legs — five.  I  only  called  attention  to  eyes  and 
legs — tw^o.  The  evolutionist  guesses  himself  away 
from  God,  but  he  only  makes  matters  worse.  How 
long  did  the  "  light  waves  "  have  to  play  on  the  skin 
before  the  eyes  came  out?  The  evolutionist  is  very 
deliberate;  he  is  long  on  time.  He  would  certainly 
give  the  eye  thousands  of  years,  if  not  millions,  in 
which  to  develop;  but  how  could  he  be  sure  that  the 
light  waves  played  all  the  time  in  one  place  or  played 
in  the  same  place  generation  after  generation  until  the 
development  was  complete?  And  why  did  the  light 
waves  quit  playing  when  two  eyes  were  perfected? 
Why  did  they  not  keep  on  playing  until  there  were  eyes 
all  over  the  body?  Why  do  they  not  play  to-day,  so 
that  we  may  see  eyes  in  process  of  development?  And 
if  the  light  waves  created  the  eyes,  why  did  they  not 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN  29 

create  them  strong  enough  to  bear  the  light?  Why 
did  the  light  waves  make  eyes  and  then  make  eyelids 
to  keep  the  light  out  of  the  eyes? 

And  so  with  the  ears.  They  must  have  gone  in  "  to 
hear  "  instead  of  out,  and  wasn't  it  lucky  that  they  hap- 
pened to  go  in  on  opposite  sides  of  the  head  instead  of 
eater-cornered  or  at  random?  Is  it  not  easier  to  be- 
lieve in  a  God  who  can  make  the  eye,  the  ear,  the  fin, 
the  wing,  and  the  leg,  as  well  as  the  light,  the  sound, 
the  air,  the  water  and  the  land  ? 

There  is  such  an  abundance  of  ludicrous  material 
that  it  is  hard  to  resist  the  temptation  to  continue  illus- 
trations indefinitely,  but  a  few  more  will  be  sufficient. 
In  order  that  you  may  be  prepared  to  ridicule  these 
pseudo-scientists  who  come  to  you  with  guesses  instead 
of  facts,  let  me  give  you  three  recent  bits  of  evolution- 
ary lore. 

Last  November  I  was  passing  through  Philadelphia 
and  read  in  an  afternoon  paper  a  report  of  an  address 
delivered  in  that  city  by  a  college  professor  employed 
in  extension  work.  Here  is  an  extract  from  the 
paper's  account  of  the  speech:  "Evidence  that  early 
men  climbed  trees  with  their  feet  lies  in  the  way  we 
wear  the  heels  of  our  shoes — more  at  the  outside.  A 
baby  can  wiggle  its  big  toe  without  wiggling  its  other 
toes — an  indication  that  it  once  used  its  big  toe  in 
climbing  trees."  What  a  consolation  it  must  be  to 
mothers  to  know  that  the  baby  is  not  to  be  blamed  for 
wiggling  the  big  toe  without  wiggling  the  other  toes. 
It  cannot  help  it,  poor  little  thing;  it  is  an  inheritance 
from  "  the  tree  man,"  so  the  evolutionists  tell  us. 


30  THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN 

And  here  is  another  extract:  "  We  often  dream  of 
falling.  Those  who  fell  out  of  the  trees  some  fifty 
thousand  years  ago  and  were  killed,  of  course,  had  no 
descendants.  So  those  who  fell  and  were  not  hurt,  of 
course,  lived,  and  so  we  are  never  hurt  in  our  dreams 
of  falling.'*  Of  course,  if  we  were  actually  descended 
from  the  inhabitants  of  trees,  it  would  seem  quite 
likely  that  we  descended  from  those  that  were  not 
killed  in  falling.  But  they  must  have  been  badly 
frightened  if  the  impression  made  upon  their  feeble 
minds  could  have  lasted  for  fifty  thousand  years  and 
still  be  vivid  enough  to  scare  us. 

If  the  Bible  said  anything  so  idiotic  as  these  guessers 
put  forth  in  the  name  of  science,  scientists  would  have 
a  great  time  ridiculing  the  sacred  pages,  but  men  who 
scoff  at  the  recorded  interpretation  of  dreams  by  Jo- 
seph and  Daniel  seem  to  be  able  to  swallow  the  amus- 
ing interpretations  offered  by  the  Pennsylvania  pro- 
fessor. 

A  few  months  ago  the  Sunday  School  Times  quoted 
a  professor  in  an  Illinois  University  as  saying  that  the 
great  day  in  history  was  the  day  when  a  water  puppy 
crawled  up  on  the  land  and,  deciding  to  be  a  land 
animal,  became  man's  progenitor.  If  these  scientific 
speculators  can  agree  upon  the  day  they  will  probably 
insist  on  our  abandoning  Washington's  birthday,  the 
Fourth  of  July,  and  even  Christmas,  in  order  to  join 
with  the  whole  world  in  celebrating  "Water  Puppy 
Day." 

Within  the  last  few  weeks  the  papers  published  a 
dispatch  from  Paris  to  the  effect  that  an  "eminent 


i 


THE  OEIGIN  OP  MAN  31 

scientist "  announced  that  he  had  communicated  with 
the  spirit  of  a  dog  and  learned  from  the  dog  that  it 
was  happy.     Must  we  believe  this,  too  ? 

But  is  the  law  of  "  natural  selection  "  a  sufficient 
explanation,  or  a  more  satisfactory  explanation,  than 
sexual  selection  ?  It  is  based  on  the  theory  that  where 
there  is  an  advantage  in  any  characteristic,  animals 
that  possess  this  characteristic  survive  and  propagate 
their  kind.  This,  according  to  Darwin's  argument, 
leads  to  progress  through  the  "  survival  of  the  fittest.'* 
This  law  or  principle  (natural  selection),  so  carefully 
worked  out  by  Darwin,  is  being  given  less  and  less 
weight  by  scientists.  Darwin  himself  admits  that  he 
"  perhaps  attributed  too  much  to  the  action  of  natural 
selection  and  the  survival  of  the  fittest"  (page  76). 
John  Burroughs,  the  naturalist,  rejects  it  in  a  recent 
magazine  article.  The  followers  of  Darwin  are  trying 
to  retain  evolution  while  rejecting  the  arguments  that 
led  Darwin  to  accept  it  as  an  explanation  of  the  varied 
life  on  the  planet.  Some  evolutionists  reject  Darwin's 
line  of  descent  and  believe  that  man,  instead  of  coming 
from  the  ape,  branched  off  from  a  common  ancestor 
farther  back,  but  "  cousin  "  ape  is  as  objectionable  as 
"  grandpa  "  ape. 

While  "  survival  of  the  fittest "  may  seem  plausible 
when  applied  to  individuals  of  the  same  species,  it  af- 
fords no  explanation  whatever,  of  the  almost  infinite 
number  of  creatures  that  have  come  under  man's  ob- 
servation. To  believe  that  natural  selection,  sexual 
selection  or  any  other  kind  of  selection  can  account  for 
the  countless  differences  we  see  about  us  requires  more 


32  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

faith  in  chance  than  a  Christian  is  required  to  have  in 
God. 

Is  it  conceivable  that  the  hawk  and  the  humming- 
bird, the  spider  and  the  honey  bee,  the  turkey  gobbler 
and  the  mocking-bird,  the  butterfly  and  the  eagle,  the 
ostrich  and  the  wren,  the  tree  toad  and  the  elephant, 
the  giraffe  and  the  kangaroo,  the  wolf  and  the  lamb 
should  all  be  the  descendants  of  a  common  ancestor? 
Yet  these  and  all  other  creatures  must  be  blood  rela- 
tives if  man  is  next  of  kin  to  the  monkey. 
>.  If  the  evolutionists  are  correct;  if  it  is  true  that  all 
that  we  see  is  the  result  of  development  from  one  or 
a  few  invisible  germs  of  life,  then,  in  plants  as  well  as 
in  animals  there  must  be  a  line  of  descent  connecting 
all  the  trees  and  vegetables  and  flowers  with  a  common 
ancestry.  Does  it  not  strain  the  imagination  to  the 
breaking  point  to  believe  that  the  oak,  the  cedar,  the 
pine  and  the  palm  are  all  the  progeny  of  one  ancient 
seed  and  that  this  seed  was  also  the  ancestor  of  wheat 
and  com,  potato  and  tomato,  onion  and  sugar  beet, 
rose  and  violet,  orchid  and  daisy,  mountain  flower  and 
magnolia?  Is  it  not  more  rational  to  believe  in  God 
and  explain  the  varieties  of  life  in  terms  of  divine 
power  than  to  waste  our  lives  in  ridiculous  attempts  to 
explain  the  unexplainable  ?  There  is  no  mortification 
in  admitting  that  there  are  insoluble  mysteries ;  but  it 
is  shameful  to  spend  the  time  that  God  has  given  for 
nobler  use  in  vain  attempts  to  exclude  God  from  His 
own  universe  and  to  find  in  chance  a  substitute  for 
God's  power  and  wisdom  and  love. 

While  evolution  in  plant  life  and  in  animal  life  up  to 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN  33 

the  highest  form  of  animal  might,  if  there  were  proof 
of  it,  be  admitted  without  raising  a  presumption  that 
would  compel  us  to  give  a  brute  origin  to  man,  why 
should  we  admit  a  thing  of  which  there  is  no  proof? 
Why  should  we  encourage  the  guesses  of  these  specu- 
lators and  thus  weaken  our  power  to  protest  when  they 
attempt  the  leap  from  the  monkey  to  man?  Let  the 
evolutionist  furnish  his  proof. 

Although  our  chief  concern  is  in  protecting  man 
from  the  demoralization  involved  in  accepting  a  brute 
ancestry,  it  is  better  to  put  the  advocates  of  evolution 
upon  the  defensive  and  challenge  them  to  produce 
proof  in  support  of  their  hypothesis  in  plant  life  and 
in  the  animal  world.  They  will  be  kept  so  busy  trying 
to  find  support  for  their  hypothesis  in  the  kingdoms 
below  man  that  they  will  have  little  time  left  to  combat 
the  Word  of  God  in  respect  to  man's  origin.  Evolu- 
tion joins  issue  with  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation. 
God's  law,  as  stated  in  Genesis,  is  reproduction  accord- 
ing to  kind;  evolution  implies  reproduction  not  accord- 
ing to  kind.  While  the  process  of  change  implied  in 
evolution  is  covered  up  in  endless  eons  of  time  it  is 
change  nevertheless.  The  Bible  does  not  say  that  re- 
production shall  be  nearly  according  to  kind  or  seem- 
ingly according  to  kind.  The  statement  is  positive 
that  it  is  according  to  kind,  and  that  does  not  leave  any 
room  for  the  changes  however  gradual  or  impercep- 
tible that  are  necessary  to  support  the  evolutionary 
hypothesis. 

We  see  about  us  everywhere  and  always  proof  of 
the  Bible  law,  viz.,  reproduction  according  to  kind ;  we 


34  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

find  nothing  in  the  universe  to  support  Darwin's  doc- 
trine of  reproducton  other  than  of  kind. 

If  you  question  the  possibility  of  such  changes  as 
the  Darwinian  doctrine  supposes  you  are  reminded  that 
t?ie  scientific  speculators  have  raised  the  time  limit. 
"If  ten  million  years  are  not  sufficient,  take  twenty," 
they  say:  "  If  fifty  million  years  are  not  enough  take 
one  or  two  hundred  millions."  That  accuracy  is  not  j 
essential  in  such  guessing  may  be  inferred  from  the  j 
fact  that  the  estimates  of  the  time  that  has  elapsed 
since  life  began  on  the  earth,  vary  from  less  than 
twenty-five  million  years  to  more  than  three  hundred 
million.  Darwin  estimated  this  period  at  two  hundred 
million  years  while  Darwin's  son  estimated  it  at  fifty- 
seven  million. 

It  requires  more  than  millions  of  years  to  account 
for  the  varieties  of  life  that  inhabit  the  earth;  it  re- 
quires a  Creator,  unlimited  in  power,  unlimited  intelli- 
gence, and  unlimited  love. 

But  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  sometimes  carried 
farther  than  that.  A  short  while  ago  Canon  Barnes, 
of  Westminster  Abbey,  startled  his  congregation  by  an 
interpretation  of  evolution  that  ran  like  this:  "  It  now 
seems  highly  probable  (probability  again)  that  from 
some  fundamental  stuff  in  the  universe  the  electrons 
arose.  From  them  came  matter.  From  matter,  life 
emerged.  From  life  came  mind.  From  mind,  spiri- 
tual consciousness  was  developing.  There  was  a  time 
when  matter,  life  and  mind,  and  the  soul  of  man  were 
not,  but  now  they  are.  Each  has  arisen  as  a  part  of 
the  vast  scheme  planned  by  God."     (An  American 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MA2^  36 

professor  in  a  Christian  college  has  recently  expressed 
himself  along  substantially  the  same  lines.) 

But  what  has  God  been  doing  since  the  "  stuff  "  be- 
gan to  develop?  The  verbs  used  by  Canon  Barnes 
indicate  an  internal  development  unaided  from  above. 
"Arose,  came,  emerged,  etc.,'*  all  exclude  the  idea  that 
God  is  within  reach  or  call  in  man's  extremity. 

When  I  was  a  boy  in  college  the  materialists  began 
with  matter  separated  into  infinitely  small  particles  and 
every  particle  separated  from  every  other  particle  by 
distance  infinitely  great.  But  now  they  say  that  it 
takes  1,740  electrons  to  make  an  atom  of  infinite  fine- 
ness. God,  they  insist,  has  not  had  anything  to  do 
with  this  universe  since  1,740  electrons  formed  a 
chorus  and  sang,  "  We'll  be  an  atom  by  and  by." 

It  requires  measureless  credulity  to  enable  one  to 
believe  that  all  that  we  see  about  us  came  by  chance, 
by  a  series  of  happy-go-lucky  accidents.  If  only  an 
infinite  God  could  have  formed  hydrogen  and  oxygen 
and  united  them  in  just  the  right  proportions  to  pro- 
duce water — the  daily  need  of  every  living  thing — 
scattered  among  the  flowers  all  the  colours  of  the  rain- 
bow and  every  variety  of  perfume,  adjusted  the  mock- 
ing-bird's throat  to  its  musical  scale,  and  fashioned  a 
soul  for  man,  why  should  we  want  to  imprison  such  a 
Cxod  in  an  impenetrable  past?  This  is  a  living  world; 
why  not  a  living  God  upon  the  throne?  Why  not 
allow  Him  to  work  nozvf 

Darwin  is  so  sure  that  his  theory  is  correct  that  he 
is  ready  to  accuse  the  Creator  of  trying  to  deceive  man 
if  the  theory  is  not  sound.     On  page  41  he  says:  "  To 


36  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAK 

take  any  other  view  is  to  admit  that  our  structure  and 
that  of  all  animals  about  us,  is  a  mere  snare  to  entrap 
our  judgment;"  as  if  the  Almighty  were  in  duty 
bound  to  make  each  species  so  separate  from  every 
other  that  no  one  could  possibly  be  confused  by  resem- 
blances. There  would  seem  to  be  differences  enough. 
To  put  man  in  a  class  with  the  chimpanzee  because  of 
any  resemblances  that  may  be  found  is  so  unreasonable 
that  the  masses  have  never  accepted  it. 

If  we  see  houses  of  different  size,  from  one  room  to 
one  hundred,  we  do  not  say  that  the  large  houses  grew 
out  of  small  ones,  but  that  the  architect  that  could  plan 
one  could  plan  all. 

But  a  groundless  hypothesis— even  an  absurd  one — 
would  be  unworthy  of  notice  if  it  did  no  harm.  This 
hypothesis,  however,  does  incalculable  harm.  It 
teaches  that  Christianity  impairs  the  race  physically. 
That  was  the  first  implication  at  which  I  revolted.  It 
led  me  to  review  the  doctrine  and  reject  it  entirely.  If 
hatred  is  the  law  of  man's  development ;  that  is,  if  man 
has  reached  his  present  perfection  by  a  cruel  law  under 
which  the  strong  kill  off  the  weak — then,  if  there  is 
any  logic  that  can  bind  the  human  mind,  we  must  turn 
backward  toward  the  brute  if  we  dare  to  substitute 
the  law  of  love  for  the  law  of  hate.  That  is  the  con- 
clusion that  I  reached  and  it  is  the  conclusion  that  Dar- 
win himself  reached.  On  pages  149-50  he  says: 
"  With  savages  the  weak  in  body  or  mind  are  soon 
eliminated ;  and  those  that  survive  commonly  exhibit  a 
vigorous  state  of  health.  We  civilized  men,  on  the 
other  hand,  do  our  utmost  to  check  the  progress  of 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN  87 

elimination.  We  build  asylums  for  the  imbecile,  the 
maimed  and  the  sick ;  we  institute  poor  laws ;  our  med- 
ical experts  exert  their  utmost  skill  to  save  the  lives  of 
every  one  to  the  last  moment.  There  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  vaccination  has  preserved  thousands  who 
from  weak  constitutions  would  have  succumbed  to 
smallpox.  Thus  the  weak  members  of  civilized  socie- 
ties propagate  their  kind.  No  one  who  has  attended  to 
the  breeding  of  domestic  animals  will  doubt  that  tliis 
must  be  highly  injurious  to  the  race  of  man." 

This  confession  deserves  analysis.  First,  he  com- 
mends, by  implication,  the  savage  method  of  eliminat- 
ing the  weak,  while,  by  implication,  he  condemns 
"  civilized  men  "  for  prolonging  the  life  of  the  weak. 
He  even  blames  vaccination  because  it  has  preserved 
thousands  who  might  otherwise  have  succumbed  (for 
the  benefit  of  the  race?).  Can  you  imagine  anything 
more  brutal?  And  then  note  the  low  level  of  the  ar- 
gument. "  No  one  who  has  attended  the  breeding  of 
domestic  animals  will  doubt  that  this  must  be  highly 
injurious  to  the  race  of  man.'*  All  on  a  brute 
basis. 

His  hypothesis  breaks  down  here.  The  minds 
which,  according  to  Darwin,  are  developed  by  natural 
selection  and  sexual  selection,  use  their  power  to  sus- 
pend the  law  by  which  they  have  reached  their  high 
positions.  Medicine  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  the 
sciences  and  its  chief  object  is  to  save  life  and 
strengthen  the  weak.  That,  Darwin  complains,  inter- 
feres with  "the  survival  of  the  fittest."  If  he  com- 
plains of  vaccination,  what  would  he  say  of  the  more 


:er? 


38  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

recent  discovery  of  remedies  for  typhoid  fever,  yellow 
fever  and  the  black  plague  ?  And  what  would  he  think 
of  saving  weak  babies  by  pasteurizing  milk  and  of  the 
efforts  to  find  a  specific  for  tuberculosis  and  cancer? 
Can  such  a  barbarous  doctrine  be  sound  ? 

But  Darwin's  doctrine  is  even  more  destruct 
His  heart  rebels  against  the  *'  hard  reason "  upon 
which  his  heartless  hypothesis  is  built.  He  says: 
"  The  aid  which  we  feel  impelled  to  give  to  the  help- 
less is  mainly  the  result  of  the  instinct  of  sympathy, 
which  was  ariginally  acquired  as  a  part  of  the  social 
instincts,  but  subsequently  rendered  in  the  manner  in- 
dicated, more  tender  and  more  widely  diffused.  Nor 
could  we  check  our  sympathy  even  at  the  urging  of 
hard  reason,  without  deterioration  in  the  noblest  part 
of  our  nature.  The  surgeon  may  harden  himself  while 
performing  an  operation,  for  he  knows  he  is  acting  for 
the  good  of  his  patient ;  but  if  we  were  to  intentionally 
neglect  the  weak  and  the  helpless,  it  could  be  only  for 
a  contingent  benefit,  with  overwhelming  present  evil. 
We  must  therefore  bear  the  undoubted  bad  effects  of 
the  weak  surviving  and  propagating  their  kind." 

The  moral  nature  which,  according  to  Darwin,  is  also 
developed  by  natural  selection  and  sexual  selection,  re- 
pudiates the  brutal  law  to  which,  if  his  reasoning  is 
correct,  it  owes  its  origin.  Can  that  doctrine  be  ac- 
cepted as  scientific  when  its  author  admits  that  we  can- 
not apply  it  "  without  deterioration  in  the  noblest  part 
of  our  nature  "  ?  On  the  contrary,  civilization  is 
measured  by  the  moral  revolt  against  the  cruel  doctrine 
developed  by  Darwin. 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  39 

Darwin  rightly  decided  to  suspend  his  doctrine,  even 
at  the  risk  of  impairing  the  race.  But  some  of  his 
followers  are  more  hardened.  A  few  years  ago  I  read 
a  book  in  which  the  author  defended  the  use  of  alcohol 
on  the  ground  that  it  rendered  a  service  to  society  by 
killing  off  the  degenerates.  And  this  argument  was 
advanced  by  a  scientist  in  the  fall  of  1920  at  a  congress 
against  alcohol. 

The  language  which  I  have  quoted  proves  that  Dar- 
winism is  directly  antagonistic  to  Christianity,  which 
boasts  of  its  eleemosynary  institutions  and  of  the  care 
it  bestows  on  the  weak  and  the  helpless.  Darwin,  by 
putting  man  on  a  brute  basis  and  ignoring  spiri- 
tual values,  attacks  the  very  foundations  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

Those  who  accept  Darwin's  views  are  in  the  habit  of 
saying  that  it  need  not  lessen  their  reverence  for  God 
to  believe  that  the  Creator  fashioned  a  germ  of  life  and 
endowed  it  with  power  to  develop  into  what  we  sec  to- 
day. It  is  true  that  a  God  who  could  make  man  as  he 
is,  could  have  made  him  by  the  long-drawn-out  process 
suggested  by  Darwin.  To  do  either  would  require  in- 
finite power,  beyond  the  ability  of  man  to  compre- 
hend. But  what  is  the  natural  tendency  of  Darwin's 
doctrine  ? 

Will  man's  attitude  toward  Darwin's  God  be  the 
same  as  it  would  be  toward  the  God  of  Moses?  Will 
the  believer  in  Darwin's  God  be  as  conscious  of  God's 
presence  in  his  daily  life?  Will  he  be  as  sensitive  to 
God's  will  and  as  anxious  to  find  out  what  God  wants 
him  to  do  ? 


t 

I 


/ 


40  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAK 

Will  the  believer  in  Darwin*s  God  be  as  fervent  in 
prayer  and  as  open  to  the  reception  of  divine  sugges- 
tions ? 

I  shall  later  trace  the  influence  of  Darwinism  on 
world  peace  when  the  doctrine  is  espoused  by  one  bold 
enough  to  carry  it  to  its  logical  conclusion,  but  I  must 
now  point  out  its  natural  and  logical  effect  upon  young 
Christians. 

A  boy  is  bom  in  a  Christian  family ;  as  soon  as  he  is 
able  to  join  words  together  into  sentences  his  mother 
teaches  him  to  lisp  the  child's  prayer:  "  Now  I  lay  me 
down  to  sleep;  I  pray  the  Lord  my  soul  to  keep;  if  I 
should  die  before  I  wake,  I  pray  the  Lord  my  soul  to 
take."  A  little  later  the  boy  is  taught  the  Lord's 
Prayer  and  each  day  he  lays  his  petition  before  the 
Heavenly  Father:  "  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread  " ; 
"  Lead  us  not  into  temptation  " ;  *'  Deliver  us  from 
evil  " ;  "  Forgive  our  trespasses  " ;  etc. 

He  talks  with  God.  He  goes  to  Sunday  school  and 
learns  that  the  Heavenly  Father  is  even  more  kind  than 
earthly  parents ;  he  hears  the  preacher  tell  how  precious 
our  lives  are  in  the  sight  of  God — ^how  even  a  sparrow 
cannot  fall  to  the  ground  without  His  notice.  All  his 
faith  is  built  upon  the  Book  that  informs  him  that  he 
is  made  in  the  image  of  God ;  that  Christ  came  to  re- 
veal God  to  man  and  to  be  man's  Saviour. 

Then  he  goes  to  college  and  a  learned  professor 
leads  him  through  a  book  600  pages  thick,  largely 
devoted  to  resemblances  between  man  and  the  beasts 
about  him.  His  attention  is  called  to  a  point  in  the 
ear  that  is  like  a  point  in  the  ear  of  the  ourang,  to  ca- 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN  41 

nine  teeth,  to  muscles  like  those  by  which  a  horse 
moves  his  ears. 

He  is  then  told  that  everything  found  in  a  human 
brain  is  found  in  miniature  in  a  brute  brain. 

And  how  about  morals  ?  He  is  assured  that  the  de- 
velopment of  the  moral  sense  can  be  explained  on  a 
brute  basis  without  any  act  of,  or  aid  from,  God. 
(See  pages  113-114.) 

No  mention  of  religion,  the  only  basis  for  morality; 
not  a  suggestion  of  a  sense  of  responsibility  to  God — 
nothing  but  cold,  clammy  materialism!  Darwinism 
transforms  the  Bible  into  a  story  book  and  reduces 
Christ  to  man's  level.  It  gives  him  an  ape  for  an  an- 
cestor on  His  mother's  side  at  least  and,  as  many  evo- 
lutionists believe,  on  His  Father's  side  also. 

The  instructor  gives  the  student  a  new  family  tree 
millions  of  years  long,  with  its  roots  in  the  water 
(marine  animals)  and  then  sets  him  adrift,  with  infi- 
nite capacity  for  good  or  evil  but  with  no  light  to 
guide  him,  no  compass  to  direct  him  and  no  chart  of 
the  sea  of  life! 

No  wonder  so  large  a  percentage  of  the  boys  and 
girls  who  go  from  Sunday  schools  and  churches  to  col- 
leges (sometimes  as  high  as  seventy-five  per  cent.) 
never  return  to  religious  work.  How  can  one  feel 
God's  presence  in  his  daily  life  if  Darwin's  reasoning 
is  sound?  This  restraining  influence,  more  potent 
than  any  external  force,  is  paralyzed  when  God  is  put 
so  far  away.  How  can  one  believe  in  prayer  if, 
for  millions  of  years,  God  has  never  touched  a  human 
life  or  laid  His  hand  upon  the  destiny  of  the  human 


42  THE  ORIGIK  OF  MAN 

race?  What  mockery  to  petition  or  implore,  if  God 
neither  hears  nor  answers.  Elijah  taunted  the 
prophets  of  Baal  when  their  god  failed  to  answer  with 
fire;  **  Cry  aloud/'  he  said,  **  peradventure  he  sleep- 
eth."  Darwin  mocks  the  Christians  even  more  cruelly ; 
he  tells  us  that  our  God  has  been  asleep  for  millions  of 
years.  Even  worse,  he  does  not  affirm  that  Jehovah 
was  ever  awake.  Nowhere  does  he  collect  for  the 
reader  the  evidences  of  a  Creative  Power  and  call  upon 
man  to  worship  and  obey  God.  The  great  scientist  is, 
if  I  may  borrow  a  phrase,  ''  too  much  absorbed  in  the 
things  infinitely  small  to  consider  the  things  infinitely 
great."  Darwinism  chills  the  spiritual  nature  and 
quenches  the  fires  of  religious  enthusiasm.  If  the 
proof  in  support  of  Darwinism  does  not  compel  accept- 
ance— and  it  does  not — why  substitute  it  for  an  ac- 
count of  the  Creation  that  links  man  directly  with  the 
Creator  and  holds  before  him  an  example  to  be  imi- 
tated? As  the  eminent  theologian,  Charles  Hodge, 
says:  "The  Scriptural  doctrine  (of  Creation)  ac- 
counts for  the  spiritual  nature  of  man,  and  meets  all 
his  spiritual  necessities.  It  gives  him  an  object  of 
adoration,  love  and  confidence.  It  reveals  the  Being 
on  whom  his  indestructible  sense  of  responsibility  ter- 
minates. The  truth  of  this  doctrine,  therefore,  rests 
not  only  upon  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  but  on 
the  very  constitution  of  our  nature." 

I  have  spoken  of  what  would  seem  to  be  the  natural 
and  logical  effect  of  the  Darwin  hypothesis  on  the 
minds  of  the  young.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  its 
actual  effect  on  Darwin  himself.     In  his  "  Life  and 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  43 

Letters,"  he  says:  "  I  am  much  engaged,  an  old  man, 
and  out  of  health,  and  I  cannot  spare  time  to  answer 
your  questions  fully — nor  indeed  can  they  be  an- 
swered. Science  has  nothing  to  do  wdth  Christ,  ex- 
cept in  so  far  as  the  habit  of  scientific  research  makes 
a  man  cautious  in  admitting  evidence.  For  myself,  I 
do  not  believe  that  there  ever  has  been  any  revelation. 
As  for  a  future  life,  every  man  must  judge  for  himself 
between  conflicting  vague  probabilities."  It  will  be 
seen  that  science,  according  to  Darwin,  has  nothing  to 
do  virith  Christ  (except  to  discredit  revelation  w^hich 
makes  Christ's  mission  known  to  men).  Darwin  him- 
self does  not  believe  that  there  has  ever  been  any  reve- 
lation, which,  of  course,  excludes  Christ.  It  will  be 
seen  also  that  he  has  no  definite  views  on  the  future 
life — "  every  man,"  he  says,  "  must  judge  for  himself 
between  conflicting  vague  probabilities f' 

It  is  fair  to  conclude  that  it  was  his  own  doctrine 
that  led  him  astray,  for  in  the  same  connection  (in 
"Life  and  Letters")  he  says  that  when  aboard  the 
Beagle  he  was  called  "  orthodox  and  was  heartily 
laughed  at  by  several  of  the  officers  for  quoting  the 
Bible  as  an  unanswerable  authority  on  some  point  of 
morality."  In  the  same  connection  he  thus  describes 
his  change  and  his  final  attitude:  "  When  thus  reflect- 
ing I  feel  compelled  to  look  to  a  First  Cause,  having 
an  intelligent  mind  in  some  degree  analogous  to  that 
of  man;  and  I  deserve  to  be  called  a  Theist.  This 
conclusion  was  strong  in  my  mind  about  the  time,  as 
far  as  I  can  remember,  when  I  wrote  the  *  Origin  of 
Species';  and  it  is  since  that  time  that  it  has  very 


44  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAK 

gradually,  with  many  fluctuations,  become  weaker. 
But  then  arises  the  doubt:  Can  the  mind  of  man, 
which  has,  as  I  fully  believe,  been  developed  from  a 
mind  as  low  as  that  possessed  by  the  lowest  animals,  be 
trusted  when  it  draws  such  grand  conclusions  ? 

"  I  cannot  pretend  to  throw  the  least  light  on  such 
abstruse  problems.  The  mystery  of  the  beginning  of 
all  things  is  insoluble  by  us;  and  I  for  one  must  be 
content  to  remain  an  Agnostic." 

A  careful  reading  of  the  above  discloses  the  gradual 
transition  wrought  in  Darwin  himself  by  the  unsup- 
ported hypothesis  which  he  launched  upon  the  world, 
or  which  he  endorsed  with  such  earnestness  and  indus- 
try as  to  impress  his  name  upon  it  He  was  regarded 
as  ''orthodox'^  when  he  was  young;  he  was  even 
laughed  at  for  quoting  the  Bible  ''  as  an  unanswerable 
authority  on  some  point  of  morality."  In  the  begin- 
ning he  regarded  himself  as  a  Theist  and  felt  com- 
pelled "  to  look  to  a  First  Cause,  having  an  intelligent 
mind  in  some  degree  analogous  to  that  of  man." 

This  conclusion,  he  says,  was  strong  in  his  mind 
when  he  wrote  "  The  Origin  of  Species,"  but  he  ob- 
serves that  since  that  time  this  conclusion  very  gradu- 
ally became  weaker,  and  then  he  unconsciously  brings 
a  telling  indictment  against  his  own  hypothesis.  He 
says,  ''Can  the  mind  of  man  (which,  according  to  his 
belief,  has  been  developed  from  a  mind  as  low  as  that 
possessed  by  the  lowest  animals)  be  trusted  when  it 
draws  such  grand  conclusions f  "  He  first  links  man 
with  the  animals,  and  then,  because  of  this  supposed 
connection,  estimates  man's  mind  by  brute  standards. 


THE  OEIGIK  OF  MAN  46 

Agnosticism  is  the  natural  attitude  of  the  evolutionist. 
How  can  a  brute  mind  comprehend  spiritual  things? 
It  makes  a  tremendous  difference  what  a  man  tliinks 
about  his  origin  whether  he  looks  up  or  down.  Who 
will  say,  after  reading  these  words,  that  it  is  immaterial 
what  man  thinks  about  his  origin?  Who  will  deny 
that  the  acceptance  of  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  shuts 
out  the  higher  reasonings  and  the  larger  conceptions 
of  man? 

On  the  very  brink  of  the  grave,  after  he  had  ex- 
tracted from  his  hypothesis  all  the  good  that  there  was 
in  it  and  all  the  benefit  that  it  could  confer,  he  is  help- 
lessly in  the  dark,  and  "  cannot  pretend  to  throw  the 
least  light  on  such  abstruse  problems."  When  he  be- 
lieved in  God,  in  the  Bible,  in  Christ  and  in  a  future 
life  there  were  no  mysteries  that  disturbed  him,  but  a 
guess  with  nothing  in  the  universe  to  support  it  swept 
him  away  from  his  moorings  and  left  him  in  his  old 
age  in  the  midst  of  mysteries  that  he  thought  insoluble. 
He  must  content  himself  with  Agnosticism.  What 
can  Darwinism  ever  do  to  compensate  any  one  for  the 
destruction  of  faith  in  God,  in  His  Word,  in  His  Son, 
and  of  hope  of  immortality? 

It  would  seem  sufficient  to  quote  Darwin  against 
himself  and  to  cite  the  confessed  effect  of  the  doctrine 
as  a  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  it,  but  the  situation 
is  a  very  serious  one  and  there  is  other  evidence  that 
should  be  presented. 

James  H.  Leuba,  a  professor  of  Psychology  in  Bryn 
Mawr  College,  Pennsylvania,  wrote  a  book  five  years 
ago,  entitled  "Belief  in  God  and  Immortality."    It 


46  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  | 

was  published  by  Sherman  French  &  Co.,  of  Boston, 
and  repubHshed  by  The  Open  Court  PubHshing  Com- 
pany  of  Chicago.     Every  Christian  preacher  should^ 
procure  a  copy  of  this  book  and  it  should  be  in  the 
hands  of  every  Christian  layman  who  is  anxious  to  aid  | 
in  the  defense  of  the  Bible  against  its  enemies.    Leuba 
has  discarded  beUef  in  a  personal  God  and  in  personal 
immortality.    He  asserts  that  belief  in  a  personal  God 
and  personal  immortality  is  declining  in  the  United  j 
States,  and  he  furnishes  proof,  which,  as  long  as  it  h 
unchallenged,  seems  conclusive.     He  takes  a  book  con-  | 
taining  the  names  of  fifty-five  hundred  scientists — the 
names  of  practically  all  American  scientists  of  promi- 
nence, he  afBrms — and  sends  them  questions.     Upon 
the  answers  received  he  asserts  that  more  than  one- 
half  of  the  prominent  scientists  of  the  United  States,:] 
those  teaching  Biology,  Psychology,  Geology  and  His- 
tory especially,  have  discarded  belief  in  a  personal  G( 
and  in  personal  immortality. 

This  is  what  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  doing  foi 
those  who  teach  our  children.  They  first  discard  the  ^ 
Mosaic  account  of  man's  creation,  and  they  do  it  on  the ; 
ground  that  there  are  no  miracles.  This  in  itself  con-! 
stitutes  a  practical  repudiation  of  the  Bible;  the  mir-' 
acles  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  cannot  be  cut  out 
without  a  mutilation  that  is  equivalent  to  rejection.  1 
They  reject  the  supernatural  along  with  the  miracle, 
and  with  the  supernatural  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible 
and  the  authority  that  rests  upon  inspiration.  If  these  " 
believers  in  evolution  are  consistent  and  have  the  cour- 
age to  carry  their  doctrine  to  its  logical  conclusion, 


THE  ORIGIN  OP  MAN  47 

they  reject  the  virgin  birth  of  Christ  and  the  resurrec- 
tion. They  may  still  regard  Christ  as  an  unusual  man, 
but  they  will  not  make  much  headway  in  converting 
people  to  Christianity,  if  they  declare  Jesus  to  be  noth- 
ing more  than  a  man  and  either  a  deliberate  impostor 
or  a  deluded  enthusiast. 

The  evil  influence  of  these  Materialistic,  Atheistic  or 
Agnostic  professors  is  disclosed  by  further  investiga- 
tion made  by  Leuba.  He  questioned  the  students  of 
nine  representative  colleges,  and  upon  their  answers  de- 
clares that,  while  only  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  freshmen 
have  discarded  the  Christian  religion,  thirty  per  cent, 
of  the  juniors  and  that  forty  to  forty-five  per  cent,  of 
the  men  graduates  have  abandoned  the  cardinal  prin- 
ciples of  the  Christian  faith.  Can  Christians  be  indif- 
ferent to  such  statistics?  Is  it  an  immaterial  thing 
that  so  large  a  percentage  of  the  young  men  who  go 
from  Christian  homes  into  institutions  of  learning 
should  go  out  from  these  institutions  with  the  spiritual 
element  eliminated  from  their  lives?  What  shall  it 
profit  a  man  if  he  shall  gain  all  the  learning  of  the 
schools  and  lose  his  faith  in  God  ? 

To  show  how  these  evolutionists  undermine  the 
faith  of  students  let  me  give  you  an  illustration  that 
recently  came  to  my  attention:  A  student  in  one  of  the 
largest  State  universities  of  the  nation  recently  gave 
me  a  printed  speech  delivered  by  the  president  of  the 
university,  a  year  ago  this  month,  to  3,600  students, 
and  printed  and  circulated  by  the  Student  Christian 
Association  of  the  institution.  The  student  who  gave 
me  the  speech  marked  the  following  paragraph :  "And, 


48  THE  OEIQIN  OP  MAN 

again,  religion  must  not  be  thought  of  as  something 
that  is  inconsistent  with  reasonable,  scientific  thinking 
in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  universe.  I  go  so  far 
as  to  say  that,  if  you  cannot  reconcile  religion  with 
the  things  taught  in  biology,  in  psychology,  or  in  the 
other  fields  of  study  in  this  university,  then  you  should 
throw  your  religion  av/ay.  Scientific  truth  is  here  to 
stay."  What  about  the  Bible,  is  it  not  here  to  stay? 
If  he  had  stopped  with  the  first  sentence,  his  language 
might  not  have  been  construed  to  the  injury  of  re- 
ligion, because  religion  is  not  "  inconsistent  with  rea- 
sonable, scientific  thinking  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
the  universe."  There  is  nothing  unreasonable  about 
Giristianity,  and  there  is  nothing  unscientific  about 
Christianity.  No  scientific  fact — no  fact  of  any  other 
kind  can  disturb  religion,  because  facts  are  not  in  con- 
flict with  each  other.  It  is  guessing  by  scientists  and 
so-called  scientists  that  is  doing  the  harm.  And  it  is 
guessing  that  is  endorsed  by  this  distinguished  college 
president  (a  D.  D.,  too,  as  well  as  an  LL.  D.  and  a 
Ph.  D.)  when  he  says,  "  I  go  so  far  as  to  say  that, 
if  you  cannot  reconcile  religion  with  the  things  taught 
in  biology,  in  psychology,  or  in  the  other  fields  of  study 
in  this  university,  then  you  should  throw  your  religion 
away."  What  does  this  mean,  except  that  the  books 
on  biology  and  on  other  scientific  subjects  used  in  that 
university  are  to  be  preferred  to  the  Bible  in  case  of 
conflict?  The  student  is  told,  "throw  your  religion 
away,"  if  he  cannot  reconcile  it  (the  Bible,  of 
course,)  with  the  things  taught  in  biology,  psychology, 
etc.     Books  on  biology  change  constantly,   likewise 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN  49 

books  on  psychology,  and  yet  they  are  held  before  the 
students  as  better  authority  than  the  unchanging  Word 
of  God. 

Is  any  other  proof  needed  to  show  the  irreligious  in- 
fluence exerted  by  Darwinism  applied  to  man  ?  At  the 
University  of  Wisconsin  (so  a  Methodist  preacher 
told  me)  a  teacher  told  his  class  that  the  Bible  was  a 
collection  of  myths.  When  I  brought  the  matter  to 
the  attention  of  the  President  of  the  University,  he 
criticized  me  but  avoided  all  reference  to  the  professor. 
At  Ann  Arbor  a  professor  argued  with  students  against 
reHgion  and  asserted  that  no  thinking  man  could 
beheve  in  God  or  the  Bible.  At  Columbia  (I  learned 
this  from  a  Baptist  preacher)  a  professor  began  his 
course  in  geology  by  telling  his  class  to  throw  away  all 
that  they  had  learned  in  the  Sunday  school.  There  is 
a  professor  in  Yale  of  whom  it  is  said  that  no  one 
leaves  his  class  a  believer  in  God.  (This  came  from  a 
young  man  who  told  me  that  his  brother  was  being  led 
away  from  the  Christian  faith  by  this  professor.)  A 
father  (a  Congressman)  tells  me  that  a  daughter  on 
her  return  from  Wellesley  told  him  that  nobody  be- 
lieved in  the  Bible  stories  now.  Another  father  (a 
Congressman)  tells  me  of  a  son  whose  faith  was  un- 
dermined by  this  doctrine  in  a  Divinity  School.  Three 
preachers  told  me  of  having  their  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject aroused  by  the  return  of  their  children  from  col- 
lege with  their  faith  shaken.  The  Northern  Baptists 
have  recently,  after  a  spirited  contest,  secured  the 
adoption  of  a  Confession  of  Faith:  it  was  opposed  by 
the  evolutionists. 


1 


60  THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN 

In  Kentucky  the  fight  is  on  among  the  Disciples,  and 
it  is  becoming  more  and  more  acute  in  the  Northern 
branches  of  the  Methodist  and  Presbyterian  Churches. 
"  A  young  preacher,  just  out  of  a  theological  seminary, 
who  did  not  believe  in  the  virgin  birth  of  Christ,  was 
recently  ordained  in  Western  New  York.  Last  April 
I  met  a  young  man  Vv^ho  was  made  an  atheist  by  two 
teachers  in  a  Christian  college. 

These  are  only  a  few  illustrations  that  have  come 
under  my  own  observation — nearly  all  of  them  within 
a  year.  What  is  to  be  done?  Are  the  members  of 
the  various  Christian  churches  willing  to  have  the 
power  of  the  pulpit  paralyzed  by  a  false,  absurd  and 
ridiculous  doctrine  which  is  without  support  in  the 
written  Word  of  God  and  without  support  also  in  na- 
ture? Is  "thus  saith  the  Lord"  to  be  supplanted  by 
guesses  and  speculations  and  assumptions?  I  submit 
three  propositions  for  the  consideration  of  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  nation: 

First,  the  preachers  who  are  to  break  the  bread  of 
life  to  the  lay  members  should  believe  that  man  has  in 
him  the  breath  of  the  Almighty,  as  the  Bible  declares, 
and  not  the  blood  of  the  brute,  as  the  evolutionists 
affirm.  He  should  also  believe  in  the  virgin  birth  of 
the  Saviour. 

Second,  none  but  Christians  in  good  standing  and 
with  a  spiritual  conception  of  life  should  be  allowed  to 
teach  in  Christian  schools.  Church  schools  are  worse 
than  useless  if  they  bring  students  under  the  influence 
of  those  who  do  not  believe  in  the  religion  upon  which  j 
the  Church  and  church  schools  are  built.     Atheism  j 


THE  OETGIN  OF  MAK  61 

and  Agnosticism  are  more  dangerous  when  hidden 
under  the  cloak  of  reHgion  than  when  they  are  exposed 
to  view. 

Third,  in  schools  supported  by  taxation  we  should 
have  a  real  neutrality  wherever  neutrality  in  religion 
is  desired.  If  the  Bible  cannot  be  defended  in  these 
schools  it  should  not  be  attacked,  either  directlv  or 
under  the  guise  of  philosophy  or  science.  The  neu- 
trality which  we  now  have  is  often  but  a  sham;  it 
carefully  excludes  the  Christian  religion  but  per- 
mits the  use  of  the  schoolrooms  for  the  destruction 
of  faith  and  for  the  teaching  of  materialistic  doc- 
trines. 

It  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  some  believers  in  Dar- 
winism retain  their  belief  in  Christianity;  some  sur- 
vive smallpox.  As  we  avoid  smallpox  because  many 
die  of  it,  so  we  should  avoid  Darwinism  because  it 
leads  many  astray. 

\If  it  is  contended  that  an  instructor  has  a  right  to 
teach  anything  he  likes,  I  reply  that  the  parents  who 
pay  the  salary  have  a  right  to  decide  what  shall  be 
taught.  To  continue  the  illustration  used  above,  a 
person  can  expose  himself  to  the  smallpox  if  he  desires 
to  do  so,  but  he  has  no  right  to  communicate  it  to 
others.  So  a  man  can  believe  anything  he  pleases  but 
he  has  no  right  to  teach  it  against  the  protest  of  his 
employers. 

Acceptance  of  Darwin's  doctrine  tends  to  destroy 
one's  belief  in  immortality  as  taught  by  the  Bible.  If 
there  has  been  no  break  in  the  line  between  man  and 
the  beasts — ^no  time  when  by  the  act  of  the  Heavenly 


52  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

Father  man  became  "  a  living  Soul,"  at  what  period  in 
man's  development  was  he  endowed  with  the  hope  of 
a  future  life?  And,  if  the  brute  theory  leads  to  the 
abandonment  of  belief  in  a  future  life  with  its  rewards 
and  punishments,  what  stimulus  to  righteous  living  is 
offered  in  its  place  ? 

Darwinism  leads  to  a  denial  of  God.  Nietzsche 
carried  Darwinism  to  its  logical  conclusion  and  it 
made  him  the  most  extreme  of  anti-Christians.  I  had 
read  extracts  from  his  writings — enough  to  acquaint 
me  with  his  sweeping  denial  of  God  and  of  the  Saviour 
— but  not  enough  to  make  me  familiar  with  his  philos- 
ophy. 

As  the  war  progressed  I  became  more  and  more 
impressed  with  the  conviction  that  the  German  propa- 
ganda rested  upon  a  materialistic  foundation.  I  se- 
cured the  writings  of  Nietzsche  and  found  in  them  a 
defense,  made  in  advance,  of  all  the  cruelties  and 
atrocities  practiced  by  the  militarists  of  Germany. 
Nietzsche  tried  to  substitute  the  worship  of  the  "  Su- 
perman" for  the  worship  of  God.  He  not  only  re- 
jected the  Creator,  but  he  rejected  all  moral  standards. 
He  praised  war  and  eulogized  hatred  because  it  led  to 
war.  He  denounced  sympathy  and  pity  as  attributes 
unworthy  of  man.  He  believed  that  the  teachings  of 
Christ  made  degenerates  and,  logical  to  the  end,  he 
regarded  Democracy  as  the  refuge  of  weaklings.  He 
saw  in  man  nothing  but  an  animal  and  in  that  animal 
the  highest  virtue  he  recognized  was  **  The  Will  to 
Power" — a  will  which  should  know  no  let  or  hin- 
drance, no  restraint  or  limitation. 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  63 

Nietzsche's  philosophy  would  convert  the  world  into 
a  ferocious  conflict  between  beasts,  each  brute  tram- 
pling ruthlessly  on  everything  in  his  way.  In  his  book 
entitled  "  Joyful  Wisdom/'  Nietzsche  ascribes  to  Na- 
poleon the  very  same  dream  of  power — Europe  under 
one  sovereign  and  that  sovereign  the  master  of  the 
world — that  lured  the  Kaiser  into  a  sea  of  blood  from 
which  he  emerged  an  exile  seeking  security  under  a 
foreign  flag.  Nietzsche  names  Darwin  as  one  of  the 
three  great  men  of  his  century,  but  tries  to  deprive 
him  of  credit  (  ?)  for  the  doctrine  that  bears  his  name 
by  saying  that  Hegel  made  an  earlier  announcement  of 
it.  Nietzsche  died  hopelessly  insane,  but  his  philos- 
ophy has  wrought  the  moral  ruin  of  a  multitude,  if  it  is 
not  actually  responsible  for  bringing  upon  the  world  its 
greatest  war. 

His  philosophy,  if  it  is  worthy  the  name  of  philos- 
ophy, is  the  ripened  fruit  of  Darwinism — and  a  tree  is 
known  by  its  fruit. 

In  1900 — over  twenty  years  ago — while  an  Interna- 
tional Peace  Congress  was  in  session  in  Paris  the  fol- 
lowing editorial  appeared  in  UUnivers: 

"  The  spirit  of  peace  has  fled  the  earth  because  evo- 
lution has  taken  possession  of  it.  The  plea  for  peace 
in  past  years  has  been  inspired  by  faith  in  the  divine 
nature  and  the  divine  origin  of  man;  men  were  then 
looked  upon  as  children  of  one  Father  and  war,  there- 
fore, was  fratricide.  But  now  that  men  are  looked 
upon  as  children  of  apes,  what  matters  it  whether  they 
are  slaughtered  or  not  ?  ** 

I  have  given  you  above  the  words  of  a  French  writer 


54  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAH 

published  twenty  years  ago.  I  have  just  found  in  a 
book  recently  published  by  a  prominent  English  writer 
words  along  the  same  line,  only  more  comprehensive. 
The  corroding  influence  of  Darwinism  has  spread  as 
the  doctrine  has  been  increasingly  accepted.  In  the 
American  preface  to  "  The  Glass  of  Fashion  "  these 
words  are  to  be  found:  "  Darwinism  not  only  justifies 
the  sensualist  at  the  trough  and  Fashion  at  her  glass ; 
it  justifies  Prussianism  at  the  cannon's  mouth  and  Bol- 
shevism at  the  prison-door.  If  Darwinism  be  true,  if 
Mind  is  to  be  driven  out  of  the  universe  and  accident 
accepted  as  a  sufficient  cause  for  all  the  majesty  and 
glory  of  physical  nature,  then  there  is  no  crime  or  vio- 
lence, however  abominable  in  its  circumstances  and 
however  cruel  in  its  execution,  which  cannot  be  justi- 
fied by  success,  and  no  triviality,  no  absurdity  of  Fash- 
ion which  deserves  a  censure:  more — there  is  no  act  of 
disinterested  love  and  tenderness,  no  deed  of  self-sac- 
rifice and  mercy,  no  aspiration  after  beauty  and  excel- 
lence, for  which  a  single  reason  can  be  adduced  in 
logic." 

To  destroy  the  faith  of  Christians  and  lay  the  foun- 
dation for  the  bloodiest  war  in  history  would  seem 
enough  to  condemn  Darwinism,  but  there  are  still  two 
other  indictments  to  bring  against  it.  First,  that  it 
is  the  basis  of  the  gigantic  class  struggle  that  Is  now 
shaking  society  throughout  the  world.  Both  the  capi-- 
tallst  and  the  labourer  are  Increasingly  class  conscious. 
Why?  Because  the  doctrine  of  the  "Individual  effi- 
cient for  himself  " — ^the  brute  doctrine  of  the  "  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest " — Is  driving  men  into  a  life-aud- 


THE  OEIGm  OF  MAH  65 

death  struggle  from  which  sympathy  and  the  spirit 
of  brotherhood  are  eHminated.  It  is  transforming  the 
industrial  world  into  a  slaughter-house. 

Benjamin  Kidd,  in  a  masterful  work,  entitled,  **  The 
Science  of  Power,"  points  out  how  Darwinism  fur- 
nished Neitzsche  with  a  scientific  basis  for  his  godless 
system  of  philosophy  and  is  demoralizing  industry. 

He  also  quotes  eminent  English  scientists  to  support 
the  last  charge  in  the  indictment,  namely,  that  Darwin- 
ism robs  the  reformer  of  hope.  Its  plan  of  operation 
is  to  improve  the  race  by  *'  scientific  breeding  '*  on  a 
purely  physical  basis.  A  few  hundred  years  may  be 
required — possibly  a  few  thousand — but  what  is  time 
to  one  who  carries  eons  in  his  quiver  and  envelopes  his 
opponents  in  the  *'  Mist  of  Ages  "  ? 

Kidd  w^ould  substitute  the  ''  Emotion  of  the  Ideal " 
for  scientific  breeding  and  thus  shorten  the  time  nec- 
essary for  the  triumph  of  a  social  reform.  He  counts 
one  or  two  generations  as  sufHcient.  This  is  an  enor- 
mxous  advance  over  Darwin's  doctrine,  but  Christ's 
plan  is  still  more  encouraging.  A  man  can  be  bom 
again;  the  springs  of  life  can  be  cleansed  instantly  so 
that  the  heart  loves  the  things  that  it  formerly  hated 
and  hates  the  things  that  it  once  loved.  If  this  is  true 
of  one,  it  can  be  true  of  any  mimher.  Thus,  a  nation 
can  be  born  in  a  day  if  the  ideals  of  the  people  can  be 
changed. 

Many  have  tried  to  harmonize  Darwinism  with  the 
Bible,  but  these  efforts,  while  honest  and  sometimes 
even  agonizing,  have  not  been  successful.  How  could 
they  be  when  the  natural  and  inevitable  tendency  of 


56  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

Darwinism  is  to  exalt  the  mind  at  the  expense  of  the 
heart,  to  overestimate  the  reUabiUty  of  the  reason  as 
compared  with  faith  and  to  impair  confidence  in  the 
Bible.  The  mind  is  a  machine ;  it  has  no  morals.  It 
obeys  its  owner  as  willingly  when  he  plots  to  kill  as 
when  he  plans  for  service. 

The  Theistic  evolutionist  who  tries  to  occupy  a  mid- 
dle ground  between  those  who  accept  the  Bible  account 
of  creation  and  those  who  reject  God  entirely  reminds 
one  of  a  traveller  in  the  mountains,  who,  having  fallen 
half-way  down  a  steep  slope,  catches  hold  of  a  frail 
bush.  It  takes  so  much  of  his  strength  to  keep  from 
going  lower  that  he  is  useless  as  an  aid  to  others. 
Those  who  have  accepted  evolution  in  the  belief  that  it 
was  not  anti-Christian  may  well  revise  their  conclu- 
sions in  view  of  the  accumulating  evidence  of  its  bane- 
ful influence. 

Darwinism  discredits  the  things  that  are  supernatu- 
ral and  encourages  the  worship  of  the  intellect — an 
idolatry  as  deadly  to  spiritual  progress  as  the  worship 
of  images  made  by  human  hands.  The  injury  that  it 
does  would  be  even  greater  than  it  is  but  for  the  moral 
momentum  acquired  by  the  student  before  he  comes 
under  the  blighting  influence  of  the  doctrine. 

Many  instances  could  be  cited  to  show  how  the  the- 
ory that  man  descended  from  the  brute  has,  when  de- 
liberately adopted,  driven  reverence  from  the  heart  and 
made  young  Christians  agnostics  and  sometimes  athe- 
ists— depriving  them  of  the  joy,  and  society  of  the 
service,  that  come  from  altruistic  effort  inspired  by 
religion. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN  57 

I  have  recently  read  of  a  pathetic  case  in  point.  In 
the  Encyclopaedia  Americana  you  will  find  a 
sketch  of  the  life  of  George  John  Romanes,  from 
which  the  following  extract  is  taken:  "  Romanes, 
George  John,  English  scientist.  In  1879  he  was 
elected  fellow  of  the  Royal  Society  and  in  1S7S  pub- 
lished, under  the  pseudonym  *  Physicus/  a  work  en- 
titled, *A  Candid  Examination  of  Theism,'  in  which 
he  took  up  a  somewhat  defiant  atheistic  position.  Sul> 
sequently  his  views  underwent  considerable  change ;  he 
revised  the  *  Candid  Examination,'  and,  toward  the 
close  of  his  life,  was  engaged  on  *A  Candid  Examina- 
tion of  Religion,'  in  which  he  returned  to  theistic  be- 
liefs. His  notes  for  this  work  were  published  after  his 
death,  under  the  title  *  Thoughts  on  Religion,*  edited 
by  Canon  Gore.  Romanes  was  an  ardent  supporter  of 
Darwin  and  the  evolutionists  and  in  various  works 
sought  to  extend  evolutionary  principles  to  mind,  both 
m  the  lower  animals  and  in  the  man.  He  wrote  very 
extensively  on  modem  biological  theories." 

Let  me  use  Romanes'  own  language  to  describe  the 
disappointing  experiences  of  this  intellectual  '*  prodigal 
son."  On  page  180  of  "Thoughts  on  Religion" 
(written,  as  above  stated,  just  before  his  death  but  not 
published  until  after  his  demise)  he  says,  "  The  views 
that  I  entertained  on  this  subject  (Plan  in  Revelation) 
when  an  undergraduate  (/.  e.,  the  ordinary  orthodox 
views)  were  abandoned  in  the  presence  of  the  tlieory 
of  Evolution." 

It  was  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  that  led  him  astray. 
He  attempted  to  employ  reason  to  the  exclusion  of 


68  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

faith — ^wlth  the  usual  result.  He  abandoned  prayer, 
as  he  explains  on  pages  143  and  143 :  "  Even  the  sim- 
plest act  of  will  in  regard  to  religion — that  of  prayer — 
has  not  been  performed  by  me  for  at  least  a  quarter  of 
a  century,  simply  because  it  has  seemed  impossible  to 
pray,  as  it  were,  hypothetically,  that,  much  as  I  have 
always  desired  to  be  able  to  pray,  I  cannot  will  the  at- 
tempt. To  justify  myself  for  what  my  better  judg- 
ment has  often  seemed  to  be  essentially  irrational,  I 
have  ever  made  sundry  excuses/'  "  Others  have 
doubtless  other  difficulties,  but  mine  is  chiefly,  I  think, 
that  of  an  undue  regard  to  reason  as  against  heart  and 
will — undue,  I  mean,  if  so  it  be  that  Christianity  is 
true,  and  the  conditions  to  faith  in  it  have  been  of 
divine  ordination.'* 

In  time  he  tired  of  the  husks  of  materialism  and 
started  back  to  his  Father's  house.  It  was  a  w^eary 
journey  but  as  he  plodded  along,  his  appreciation  of 
the  heart's  part  increased  until,  on  pages  153  and  153, 
he  says,  "  It  is  a  fact  that  we  all  feel  the  intellectual 
part  of  man  to  be  '  higher  '  than  the  animal,  whatever 
our  theory  of  his  origin.  It  is  a  fact  that  we  all  feel 
the  moral  part  of  man  to  be  *  higher '  than  the  intel- 
lectual, whatever  our  theory  of  either  may  be.  It  is 
also  a  fact  that  we  all  similarly  feel  the  spiritual  to  be 
*  higher '  than  the  moral,  whatever  our  theory  of  re- 
ligion may  be.  It  is  what  we  understand  by  man's 
moral,  and  still  more  his  spiritual,  qualities  that  go  to 
constitute  character.  And  it  is  astonishing  how  in  all 
walks  of  life  it  is  character  that  tells  in  the  long  run." 

On  page  150  he  answered  Huxley's  attack  on  faith. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  MAN  59 

He  says,  "  Huxley,  in  '  Lay  Sermons,'  says  that  faith 
has  been  proved  a  *  cardinal  sin  '  by  science.  Now  this 
is  true  enough  of  credulity,  superstition,  etc.,  and 
science  has  done  no  end  of  good  in  developing  our 
ideas  of  method,  evidence,  etc.  But  this  is  all  on  the 
side  of  intellect  *  Faith  '  is  not  touched  by  such  facts 
or  considerations.  And  what  a  terrible  hell  science 
would  have  made  of  the  world,  if  she  had  abolished  the 
'  spirit  of  faith,'  even  in  human  relations." 

In  the  days  of  his  apostasy  he  "  took  it  for  granted," 
he  says  on  page  164,  "  that  Christianity  was  played 
out."  When  once  his  eyes  were  reopened  he  vied  witli 
Paul  himself  in  recognizing  the  superior  quality  of 
love.  On  page  163  he  quoted  the  eloquent  lines  of 
Bourdillon : 

The  night  has  a  thousand  eyes, 

And  the  day  but  one ; 
Yet  the  light  of  a  whole  world  dies 

With  the  setting  sun. 

The  mind  has  a  thousand  eyes, 

And  the  heart  but  one ; 
Yet  the  light  of  a  whole  life  dies 

When  love  is  done. 

Having  quoted  this  noble  sentiment  he  adds:  "  Love 
is  known  to  be  all  this.  How  great  then,  is  Christian- 
ity, as  being  the  religion  of  love,  and  causing  men  to 
believe  both  in  the  cause  of  love's  supremacy  and  the 
infinity  of  God's  love  to  man." 

But  Romanes  still  clung  to  Evolution  and,  so  far  as 
his  book  discloses,  his  mind  would  never  allow  his 
heaxt  to  commune  with  Darwin's  far-away  God,  whose 


60  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 

creative  power  Romanes  could  not  doubt  but  whose 
daily  presence  he  could  not  admit  without  abandoning 
his  theory. 

His  is  a  typical  case,  but  many  of  the  wanderers 
never  return  to  the  fold;  they  are  lost  sheep.  If  the 
doctrine  were  demonstrated  to  be  true  its  acceptance 
would,  of  course,  be  obligatory,  but  how  can  one  bring 
himself  to  assent  to  a  series  of  assumptions  when  such 
a  course  is  accompanied  by  such  a  tremendous  risk  of 
spiritual  loss? 

If,  as  it  does  in  so  many  instances,  it  causes  the 
student  to  choose  Darwinism,  with  its  intellectual 
delusions,  and  reject  the  Bible,  with  the  incalculable 
blessings  that  its  heart-culture  brings,  what  minister  of 
the  Gospel  or  Christian  professor  can  justify  himself 
before  the  bar  of  conscience  if,  by  impairing  confidence 
in  the  Word  of  God,  he  wrecks  human  souls?  All  the 
intellectual  satisfaction  that  Darwinism  ever  brought 
to  those  who  have  accepted  it  will  not  offset  the  sorrow 
that  darkens  a  single  life  from  which  the  brute  theory 
of  descent  has  shut  out  the  sunshine  of  God's  presence 
and  the  companionship  of  Christ.  Here,  too,  we  have 
the  testimony  of  the  distinguished  scientist  from  whom 
I  have  been  quoting.  In  his  first  book — the  attack  on 
Theism — he  says:  (page  29,  "Thoughts  on  Religion") 
"  I  am  not  ashamed  to  confess  that  with  this  virtual 
negation  of  God  the  universe  to  me  has  lost  its  soul  of 
loveliness;  and,  although  from  henceforth  the  precept 
to  'Work  while  it  is  day'  will  doubtless  gain  an 
intensified  force  from  the  terribly  intensified  meaning 
of  the  words  that  *  the  night  cometh  when  no  man  can 


THE  ORIGIK  OF  MAN  61 

work/  yet  when  at  times  I  think,  as  think  at  times  I 
must,  of  the  appalling  contrast  between  the  hallowed 
glory  of  that  creed  which  once  was  mine,  and  the 
lonely  mystery  of  existence  as  now  I  find  it, — at  such 
times  I  shall  ever  feel  it  impossible  to  avoid  the 
sharpest  pang  of  which  my  nature  is  susceptible." 

Romanes,  during  his  college  days,  came  under  the 
influence  of  those  who  worshipped  the  reason  and  this 
worship  led  him  out  into  a  starless  night.  Have  we 
not  a  right  to  demand  something  more  than  guesses, 
surmises,  and  hypotheses  before  we  exchange  the  "  hal- 
lowed glory  "  of  the  Christian  creed  for  *'  the  lonely 
mystery  of  existence"  as  Romanes  found  it?  Shall 
we  at  the  behest  of  those  who  put  the  intellect  above 
the  heart  endorse  an  unproved  doctrine  of  descent  and 
share  responsibility  for  the  wreckage  of  all  that  is 
spiritual  in  the  lives  of  our  young  people?  I  refuse 
to  have  any  part  in  such  responsibility.  For  nearly 
twenty  years  I  have  gone  from  college  to  college  and 
talked  to  students.  Wherever  I  could  do  so  I  have 
pointed  out  the  demoralizing  influence  of  Darwinism. 
I  have  received  thanks  from  many  students  who  were 
perplexed  by  the  materialistic  teachings  of  their  in- 
structors and  I  have  been  encouraged  by  the  approval 
of  parents  who  were  distressed  by  the  visible  effects  of 
these  teachings  on  their  children. 

As  many  believers  in  Darwinism  are  led  to  reject 
the  Bible  let  me,  by  way  of  recapitulation,  contrast  that 
doctrine  with  the  Bible: 

Darwinism  deals  with  nothing  but  life;  the  Bible 
deals  with  the  entire  universe — with  its  masses  of 


62  THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN 


I 


inanimate  matter  and  with  its  myriads  of  living  things, 
all  obedient  to  the  will  of  the  great  Law  Giver. 

Darwin  concerns  himself  with  only  that  part  of 
man's  existence  which  is  spent  on  earth — while  the 
Bible's  teachings  cover  all  of  life,  both  here  and  here- 
after. 

Darwin  begins  by  assuming  life  upon  the  earth ;  the 
Bible  reveals  the  source  of  life  and  chronicles  its 
creation. 

Darwin  devotes  nearly  all  his  time  to  man's  body 
and  to  the  points  at  which  the  human  frame  approaches 
in  structure — though  vastly  different  from — the  brute ; 
the  Bible  emphasizes  man's  godlike  qualities  and  the 
virtues  which  reflect  the  goodness  of  the  Heavenly 
Father. 

Darwinism  ends  in  self-destruction.  As  heretofore 
shown,  its  progress  is  suspended,  and  even  defeated, 
by  the  very  genius  which  it  is  supposed  to  develop ;  the 
Bible  invites  us  to  enter  fields  of  inexhaustible  oppor- 
tunity wherein  each  achievement  can  be  made  a  step- 
ping-stone to  greater  achievements  still. 

Darwin's  doctrine  is  so  brutal  that  it  shocks  the 
moral  sense — the  heart  recoils  from  it  and  refuses  to 
apply  the  "  hard  reason  "  upon  which  it  rests ;  the  Bible 
points  us  to  the  path  that  grows  brighter  with  the 


i 


\    years 


Darwin's  doctrine  leads  logically  to  war  and  to  the 
worship  of  Nietzsche's  "  Superman  " ;  the  Bible  tells 
us  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  and  heralds  the  coming  of 
the  glad  day  when  swords  shall  be  beaten  into  plough- 
shares and  when  nations  shall  learn  war  no  more. 


THE  OEIGIN  OF  MAN  63 

Darwin's  teachings  drag  industry  down  to  the  brute 
level  and  excite  a  savage  struggle  for  selfish  advan- 
tage; the  Bible  presents  the  claims  of  an  universal 
brotherhood  in  which  men  will  unite  their  efforts  in 
the  spirit  of  friendship. 

As  hope  deferred  maketh  the  heart  sick,  so  the 
doctrine  of  Darwin  benumbs  altruistic  effort  by  pro- 
longing indefinitely  the  time  needed  for  reforms;  the 
Bible  assures  us  of  the  triumph  of  every  righteous 
cause,  reveals  to  the  eye  of  faith  the  invisible  hosts 
that  fight  on  the  side  of  Jehovah  and  proclaims  the 
swift  fulfillment  of  God's  decrees. 

Darwinism  puts  God  far  away;  the  Bible  brings 
God  near  and  establishes  the  prayer-line  of  com- 
munication between  the  Heavenly  Father  and  His  chil- 
dren. 

Darwinism  enthrones  selfishness;  the  Bible  crowns 
love  as  the  greatest  force  in  the  world. 

Darwinism  offers  no  reason  for  existence  and  pre- 
sents no  philosophy  of  life;  the  Bible  explains  why 
man  is  here  and  gives  us  a  code  of  morals  that  fits  into 
every  human  need. 

The  great  need  of  the  \vorld  to-day  is  to  get  back 
to  God — back  to  a  real  belief  In  a  living  God — to  a 
belief  in  God  as  Creator,  Preserver  and  loving 
Heavenly  Father.  When  one  believes  In  a  personal 
God  and  considers  himself  a  part  of  God's  plan  he 
will  be  anxious  to  know  God's  will  and  to  do  it,  seek- 
ing direction  through  prayer  and  made  obedient 
through  faith. 

Man  was  made  In  the  Father's  image;  he  enters 


64  THE  ORIGIlSr  OF  MAK 

upon  the  stage,  the  cHmax  of  Jehovah's  plan.  He  is 
superior  to  the  beasts  of  the  field,  greater  than  any 
other  created  thing — but  a  little  lower  than  the  angels. 
God  made  him  for  a  purpose,  placed  before  him  in- 
finite possibilities  and  revealed  to  him  responsibilities 
commensurate  with  the  possibilities.  God  beckons 
man  upward  and  the  Bible  points  the  way;  man  can 
obey  and  travel  toward  perfection  by  the  path  that 
Christ  revealed,  or  man  can  disobey  and  fall  to  a  level 
lower,  in  some  respects,  than  that  of  the  brutes  about 
him.  Looking  heavenward  man  can  find  inspiration 
in  his  lineage;  looking  about  him  he  is  impelled  to 
kindness  by  a  sense  of  kinship  w^hich  binds  him  to 
his  brothers.  Mighty  problems  demand  his  attention ; 
a  world's  destiny  is  to  be  determined  by  him.  What 
time  has  he  to  waste  in  hunting  for  "  missing  links  " 
or  in  searching  for  resemblances  between  his  forefa- 
thers and  the  ape?  In  His  Image — in  this  sign  we 
conquer. 

We  are  not  progeny  of  the  brute;  we  have  not  been 
forced  upward  by  a  blind  pushing-power ;  neither  have 
we  tumbled  upward  by  chance.  It  is  a  drawing- 
power — ^not  a  pushing-power — that  rules  the  world — 
a  power  which  finds  its  highest  expression  in  Christ 
who  promised:  "I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
will  draw  all  men  unto  me." 


OAN     78 

^^^^     N.  MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 


r---^.' 


